Yes, but I’m sure you’ll notice that different people have come to different judgements based on viewing the same actions.
This is normal and acceptable too.
I can’t believe the amount of people who want to continue to perpetuate this myth. Do you honestly believe this man is ‘slow’ with slow being generous.
Is he Clinton for brains, absolutely not. But he is far from stupid.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Yes, but I’m sure you’ll notice that different people have come to different judgements based on viewing the same actions.
This is normal and acceptable too.[/quote]
Yah–the right one and the left, I mean wrong one.
This could only be an issue because someone wants to make it so. Just answer me how you this is a pertinant (?) evaluation of a man’s current character. How can such a small action, be used to judge his moral fiber now?
Noone expects perfection. He’s not perfect, but do you vroom, honestly think this affects his moral character and decision making at this stage of his life?
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Prof
Let me say again–I know you weren’t first in your class–you do not/will not intimidate/bully me. Not now not ever.[/quote]
You sure do assume a lot. Not only that, but this is the second time you are claiming that I don’t intimidate you. Why do you feel the need to keep saying this? I am sure psychologists would have a field day with this.
[quote]
I didn’t want to acknowlege your black affinity, but seeing how it clouds your judgement, maybe it should be so acknowleged. Conservative does not automatically mean anti-black. You don’t have to be the big race protector. Come down from whatever color tower you troll from and realize that every person from a gifted background is not out to persecute you and yours.[/quote]
What are you talking about? I never stated anything about the conservative party being anti-black. There is definitely something wrong with you. I am not sure what, but it’s there. I’m black, thus the change of the “ivory tower”. I personalized it. It is amazing that you see something else other than that. No, in fact it speaks volumes.
He is just a man. I have no “belief” in him.
[quote]
You want to pretend to be unaffected by everyone’s arguments, fine. Because you can’t take in new info, process it intelligently, and acknowlege that maybe you could move an inch is not a positive mental function. Your lack of arguing the issues and instead attacking the person is well known.[/quote]
I do believe I argued the issues quite well. Your “issues” seem to be mostly personal attacks.
[quote]
I don’t expect you to change your style for me.
Before I die though, just once say–You know what, you make a good point’ Not to me now, I know that ain’t about to happen–just once, to someone, before I die please.[/quote]
You have not made a good point. You have just rambled through this entire response. If you want to learn how to make a good point, read some of BB’s old posts.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
I can’t believe the amount of people who want to continue to perpetuate this myth. Do you honestly believe this man is ‘slow’ with slow being generous.
Is he Clinton for brains, absolutely not. But he is far from stupid.[/quote]
yeh sorry but he does come across as slow,this seems to be the common opinion of gb around alot of the western world,even amongst people that share his political veiws.
Sasquatch, whoa, relax.
I’m merely trying to suggest that other people see things a bit differently, you don’t have to jump to the mans defence and determine that everyone doing so is doing so purely because they are politically blinded – that would almost sound like you are politically blinded.
Honestly, at his age, his moral character and fibre is very unlikely to change. I’m not as old as he is, but I’m also very unlikely to change in a major way.
You might believe that when he was elected that a switch was thrown and that his past should be ignored. Others may not.
For example, while I didn’t think Kerry was given a “fair trial” during the election, I could not argue that people shouldn’t look to his past to determine his character.
Obviously all of that happened a long long time ago, but all we heard about was speculation about how he won his medals and how veterans were unhappy with him 20 years ago.
I don’t remember seeing you argue that those issues were unfair because he was a changed man from that time. I’m not arguing that you should have either – that is simply what you are arguing.
The fact you’ve decided to grant Bush a free pass is simply your choice. I don’t think you get to claim “politics” because other people have not decided to do this also.
Why don’t you grant other people the right to look at the same issues, have different values and come to a different judgment than yourself? If we all did this, discussions in the politics forums might be a lot more fruitful.
Your view is plausible. I’m not saying that you are wrong. The alternate view is plausible. You probably should not claim it is wrong.
This has GOT to be the best thread ever!!! Keepin it bumped!
[quote]vroom wrote:
For example, while I didn’t think Kerry was given a “fair trial” during the election, I could not argue that people shouldn’t look to his past to determine his character.
Obviously all of that happened a long long time ago, but all we heard about was speculation about how he won his medals and how veterans were unhappy with him 20 years ago.[/quote]
This was well said and exactly what we are talking about. ALL we heard during the elections was about what Kerry did 20 years ago. That is what every argument was based on. Now, suddenly, what you do 20 years ago doesn’t matter at all and has no effect on your character. What changed? It works one way for Bush and differently for everyone else on the planet? I do have to say that it just doesn’t sound right.
Pro X,
“ALL we heard during the elections was about what Kerry did 20 years ago. That is what every argument was based on.”
One glaring difference - that is exactly what Kerry made the centerpiece of his campaign. Kerry did not run on his Senate record or even his performance in the years since 9/11. He chose to bank his entire campaign on his Vietnam service 20 years ago - which was a huge tactical error - but more importantly, it put under a spotlight everything he did in theat clip of time.
No one is even remotley suggesting that Bush’s antics off-camera - because they certainly were - were part of how he would govern.
“Now, suddenly, what you do 20 years ago doesn’t matter at all and has no effect on your character. What changed?”
What changed? Nothing - Kerry was begging for people to evaluate the John Kerry of 20 years ago and not the John Kerry of today in the 2004 election. That was his choice.
Bush wanted to run as himself, right here, right now - Kerry wanted to run his former heroic image of the early 1970’s instead of Kerry the Senator form Massachusetts.
“It works one way for Bush and differently for everyone else on the planet? I do have to say that it just doesn’t sound right.”
I don’t think there is a double standard. We can all agree that we have done stupid stuff in the past we’d rather not be evaluated on in the future. But if you consciously choose to bring the issue up, you’re taking the risk that the evaluation goes sideways - ie, people don’t like th you of 20 years ago, as in Kerry’s case - and it burns you.
I am sure the flipping off of the off-camera was probably some of the mildest stuff a younger George Bush did. It was not a big deal and not much of a character issue. Main question is - did he grow out of it?
Sasquatch don’t you know that just about everyone of the Republican Presidents were “stupid?”
Come on now surely you have read about the beating that Dwight Eisenhower took from democrats way back in the 1950’s. The man was slow, especially in comparision to Adlai Stevenson the great intellectual democrat (who lost not once but twice to Ike). It wasn’t enough that Ike was a celebrated war hero and had accomplished a great deal outside of politics. The man was simply inferior to Stevenson. 
Then of course another famous “idiot” was Ronald Reagan. I remember well the beating he used to take from the New York Times, and other liberal news organizations. He not only won the cold war (oh I know that one really drives liberals up the wall…but it’s true) but was also elected twice! The second time by a landslide!
The latest liberal myth is that GW is stupid. Yes, most idiots get elected as Governor of the largest state in the union twice! They then go on to become two term Presidents. I live down the street from a school for children with “special needs.” I expect at least three President to come out of that school, maybe even a few congressmen
Everytime I read about the liberals take on President Bush’s intelligence I have to chuckle. He is absolutely “stupid” just like Ike, and Reagan before him.
What I like about the liberals is this: If facts don’t seem to work just start making stuff up! LOL
[quote]Professor X wrote:
vroom wrote:
For example, while I didn’t think Kerry was given a “fair trial” during the election, I could not argue that people shouldn’t look to his past to determine his character.
Obviously all of that happened a long long time ago, but all we heard about was speculation about how he won his medals and how veterans were unhappy with him 20 years ago.
This was well said and exactly what we are talking about. ALL we heard during the elections was about what Kerry did 20 years ago. That is what every argument was based on. Now, suddenly, what you do 20 years ago doesn’t matter at all and has no effect on your character. What changed? It works one way for Bush and differently for everyone else on the planet? I do have to say that it just doesn’t sound right. [/quote]
Brilliant!
I think you are so filled with hate for the President that you can’t even see that you are comparing someone giving the camera the finger to…(shaking head).
You are becoming the funniest person on this forum Prof…
Did she forever ruin the Superbowl for you, ZEB? Or worse yet, did she steal your chin up bar?
That’s good stuff. But the Ike/Stevenson to Bush/Kerry or Clinton comparison is great. Never thought of it that way. Did Bush trade on his family connections to get into what are probably this country’s (and the world’s) best high school, university, and business school? Yeah, most likely. Was he a C student because he felt like enjoying his youth? Yup. Does this make him in any way, shape or form an “idiot,” or “retarded,” or whatever other epithet you want to throw at him?
As for the middle finger, honestly, do any of you really care? If that came out and it was him in the exact same position today, jokingly flipping off an adviser before a TV broadcast actually began, would it even matter that much more? Not too long ago, might have been in 2004, Bush told a Democratic senator who was about to vote against a bill the President backed, “OK, but if you’re going to fuck me, I want a kiss first.” Great line. Does saying something like that in any way diminish the moral authority of the presidency? Of course not. I think the issue is largely that atheists on the left get into such a froth about Bush’s supposed Christian moralizing that they JUMP at the chance to seize on any personal failing of the man, no matter how trivial.
And comparing a middle finger to adultery in the Oval Office followed by perjury is absurd. Did Clinton deserve to be impeached? Maybe, maybe not. But to compare his indiscretions to Bush’s is ridiculous.
[quote]vroom wrote:
This could only be an issue because someone wants to make it so. Just answer me how you this is a pertinant (?) evaluation of a man’s current character. How can such a small action, be used to judge his moral fiber now?
Sasquatch, whoa, relax.
I’m merely trying to suggest that other people see things a bit differently, you don’t have to jump to the mans defence and determine that everyone doing so is doing so purely because they are politically blinded – that would almost sound like you are politically blinded.
Honestly, at his age, his moral character and fibre is very unlikely to change. I’m not as old as he is, but I’m also very unlikely to change in a major way.
You might believe that when he was elected that a switch was thrown and that his past should be ignored. Others may not.
For example, while I didn’t think Kerry was given a “fair trial” during the election, I could not argue that people shouldn’t look to his past to determine his character.
Obviously all of that happened a long long time ago, but all we heard about was speculation about how he won his medals and how veterans were unhappy with him 20 years ago.
I don’t remember seeing you argue that those issues were unfair because he was a changed man from that time. I’m not arguing that you should have either – that is simply what you are arguing.
The fact you’ve decided to grant Bush a free pass is simply your choice. I don’t think you get to claim “politics” because other people have not decided to do this also.
Why don’t you grant other people the right to look at the same issues, have different values and come to a different judgment than yourself? If we all did this, discussions in the politics forums might be a lot more fruitful.
Your view is plausible. I’m not saying that you are wrong. The alternate view is plausible. You probably should not claim it is wrong.[/quote]
I never suggested that a ‘switch’ was thrown when he became President. I stated I believe a man can change and his actions over the past 10-15 would seem to suggest that as well.
I have yet to suggest or push that my view is the only view. Only that it is my view. you asked me if I believed my statement, I showed you why I did. Simple as that.
I’ve never said–“at point X, forget the past” in fact my first line was a man should be judged by ALL his actions. But more weight has to go to the recent past and less as you chronologically go back. My feelings!
I have not granted Bush a free pass. He continues to be on the clock wrt his actions and decisions. I just don’t think you can go back (X) years and say he gave the finger that proves he’s a hypocrit. That’s ridiculous to me. I never questioned John K.s character. Ever. I just didn’t feel that the time was right for him. My opinion. My decision.
Everyone pushes their values on the thread vroom, that’s what it is about, and quite frankly why it gets so heated.
I think I’v more than fairly granted other people their say in many issues. This I just think is so ridiculous and benign, that I will continue to stand my ground.
I’ve conceded points to RSU, JeffR, Elk< ZEB, and you as well vroom. Even the good Prof. has made one or two good points.
Anything is possible vroom, heck on another thread I even conceded that the administration may have dupeed our President and the people into Iraq. Quite a concession on my part, but RSU presented something and I"M willing to have an open mind.
I’m open to the fact the President is not perfect and maybe is not as magnanimous as presented to the public. Give me something more than the finger thrown 20 years ago to run with.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
vroom wrote:
For example, while I didn’t think Kerry was given a “fair trial” during the election, I could not argue that people shouldn’t look to his past to determine his character.
Obviously all of that happened a long long time ago, but all we heard about was speculation about how he won his medals and how veterans were unhappy with him 20 years ago.
This was well said and exactly what we are talking about. ALL we heard during the elections was about what Kerry did 20 years ago. That is what every argument was based on. Now, suddenly, what you do 20 years ago doesn’t matter at all and has no effect on your character. What changed? It works one way for Bush and differently for everyone else on the planet? I do have to say that it just doesn’t sound right. [/quote]
This was an example of campaign crap and I don’t like it either. It wasn’t the only issue though so let’s not make that argument. The flip-flop deal was pretty big too. His voting record was pretty big to and that was what most people voted on I believe.
Wrong man, wrong time. Kerry is a decent guy. It just wasn’t his time.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Did she forever ruin the Superbowl for you, ZEB? Or worse yet, did she steal your chin up bar? [/quote]
My vote for the most ignorant comment in the past three months.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Did she forever ruin the Superbowl for you, ZEB? Or worse yet, did she steal your chin up bar?
My vote for the most ignorant comment in the past three months.
[/quote]
Most ignorant in three months covers an Oprah-ass sized chunk of ground, Zeb.
You’ve just eliminated Fedorov’s double post, and anything Al Shades said all in favor of this?
Maybe you wanna re-think, huh?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I am sure the flipping off of the off-camera was probably some of the mildest stuff a younger George Bush did. It was not a big deal and not much of a character issue. Main question is - did he grow out of it? [/quote]
Again, no one here is shocked at a middle finger. That is, except maybe Zeb, but only if Janet Jackson does it. Your last question is probably the most important and why this is even an issue in the slightest way. Honestly, the man has that same grin on his face when he speaks as if he truly thinks every word he utters is “witty”. No, I see no signs that he has grown out of that at all. How many people do you know who make major life changes and become completely different people after the age of 35? I don’t know any. They may make a few “resolutions”, but they are pretty much the same people they were at age 16 at the core. I also don’t doubt that if it weren’t for his apparently worthy PR team, the man would be making quite a bit more public slips that would tarnish his image. I also see he has pulled the reigns back on his initial “I have earned moral collateral and I plan to spend it” type of attitude he had back in November…at least in public speeches.
As far as Zeb’s comment about “hating” the president. I don’t even think like that. I don’t care enough about the man to hate him as an individual. My attitude to him as a human being is near indifference, not hate. I am just in awe at the almost god-like references people in the republican party make towards the man. I asked several times in other threads, exactly how America alone is now in a better situation due to the war in Iraq happening when it did. I still have yet to get a response to that.
Hahahahhahaa. You think you can find a senator that doesn’t have a voting record that can be manipulated and misrepresented?
Just exercise fair and decent judgment in all directions. Cut slack for both sides or be a tough son of a bitch against both sides. It’s pretty rare around here.
Prof
You have said over and over again how you don’t care one bit about the President. Once again I cal BS on you. Your argument is to passionate to say you don’t care.
Or are you only arguing to argue–as you stated–because the Republican conservatives worship him like a God"
You don’t care, but you care that other people care. Great!
On the topic of the finger, do you really believe this defines his moral code at this time? Is this a major player in his overall character? That, my friend, speaks volumes about you.
That you can’t admit the chasm between this act and what Clinton did also speaks of your value system.
That you feel we as parents should explain the vulgarity in life instead of try to shield them from it is another Prof. classic. No, they can’t be shielded from life, but you also don’t have to throw things at them just to explain them. I’ve turned down potential promotions to rear my kids in a small town, to try and eliminate some of the things that go on elsewhere. Am I doing my kids a diservice?
Look what IL has to put up with where he teaches. Look how your very own value system works. Yousee problems with the finger, but not with nudity on prime time and not with adultery in the oval office.
I don’t think I need to see apsychologist at all. Maybe it’s you who could use someone to talk to.
Pro X,
“Honestly, the man has that same grin on his face when he speaks as if he truly thinks every word he utters is “witty”.”
This sounds like a personal problem of yours. Who cares how he ‘grins’? How is that reflective of anything worthwhile in determining how we would govern?
Bush is cocksure - and he is also quite self-deprecating in his humor, but I suspect you don’t pay attention enough to realize it. But I do suspect is that some his personal affectations bother you, but that is more nitpicky that substantive.
“No, I see no signs that he has grown out of that at all.”
No? None? Not as a father, a recovered substance abuser, a former governor, and a President serving when America received its greatest attack? How could Bush not have matured?
That’s mindless charge - one you hope is true rather than one you think is true.
“How many people do you know who make major life changes and become completely different people after the age of 35?”
I don’t think overcoming a boyish prankster attitude exhibited in the middle finger incident to be a major character flaw in a person’s makeup that must be ‘overcome’. I think Bush is still the mix of blueblooded patrician and Midland good ole boy that he was when he was younger, but certainly older and wiser.
“I also see he has pulled the reigns back on his initial “I have earned moral collateral and I plan to spend it” type of attitude he had back in November…at least in public speeches.”
I think that may have more to do with the shift on to domestic issues.