With the huge tide against Bush, I was wondering why he’s fallen so far so fast? Who told him to go into Iraq with inadequate troops? Who told him to not veto any spending bills? Why did he do anything he did?
Rather than say, “He’s stupid!” or some other trite saying, could it be that he drifted away from the script? Appointing Roberts, a strict constitutional scholar, might have pissed off powerful people. Might they then use their influence to turn the country against the President?
You expect me to read all that? Couldn’t you just paraphrase? I’m a busy man.
[quote]BabyBuster wrote:
You expect me to read all that? Couldn’t you just paraphrase? I’m a busy man.[/quote]
Ummm…okay…Kings were replaced with elected officials because then who has the ‘power’, such as a president or prime minister, can be influenced or changed if necessary. Don’t like a president? Turn public opinion against him and hound him out of any real ‘power’.
So, presidents and PMs are simply frontmen for the real power in the world.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
BabyBuster wrote:
You expect me to read all that? Couldn’t you just paraphrase? I’m a busy man.
Ummm…okay…Kings were replaced with elected officials because then who has the ‘power’, such as a president or prime minister, can be influenced or changed if necessary. Don’t like a president? Turn public opinion against him and hound him out of any real ‘power’.
So, presidents and PMs are simply frontmen for the real power in the world.
[/quote]
I don’t think it’s that simple. The President does have real power. However, he does have extremely powerful and kowledgeable advisors. They are privvy to mountains of information we (the public) have no need or right to know. Everyone hates the boss, especially when he makes tough decisions. Being boss is lonely. The boss doesn’t get paid to make friends. In this case the President’s job is to protect the union and it’s citizens. You can’t make everyone happy. Never. The criticism of Lincoln is very similar to the criticism of Presidnet Bush. I honestly think that if the media reported what is really happening, instead of focusing the daily death toll (which by the way is EXTREMELY low for a war that has lasted 6 years), public opinion would be much different.
Short answer: if we weren’t force-fed constant doom and gloom news things would be very different.
We don’t hate Bush. We think he’s a complete idiot.
It’s hard to predict the future and we can’t completely blame Bush for the choices he’s made but, the fact of the matter is that his failures are the result of who he has decided to surround himself with. The president cannot be an expert at everything but he should be able to surround himself with experts. He hasn’t done this at all; in fact ignores the experts that have been in their professions longer than Bush has been in public life.
This and the fact that I beleive he lied about known intelligence and then tried to cover up this lie are a few of the many strikes agianst this man. History will judge this man harshly.
I actually don’t hate Bush. As a person he seems nice enough, and I think he is genuinely well intentioned. But I am pissed at him for two reasons 1) This attempt to implement a policy that will change the way the middle east is politically and socially. That is just plain ignorant. Those people have always hated us. They love only our money. There is no way we are going to make any sort of fundamental change in the Middle East. The only way we can get them to like us is if we, ourselves nuked Israel and gave Jerusalem to the Palestinians. Then they’d love us. There are many kinds of arabs, but as a general rule they are anti-Semitic bigots. That they mostly agree on. In the end I would have settled on brokering peace in such a way where they won’t blow us up. Trying to change the politics in the ME was just not necessary. 2) Thinking America and Americans had the stomach for pre-emptive war. We do not. It will cost us more American lives in the long run, but as a public we cannot stand going to war with someone before they go to war with us.
Bush gets a lot of shit for things he didn’t do nor had no control over; such as Katrina. If Nagin let the Red Cross in, evacuated the city sooner, used the idle busses, etc., or Blanco called up the guard things would not have gotten as bad. But know they ran around in confusion because they ran into a problem that under-the-table money exchanges could not fix. Yes, the government in NO is that corrupt. But, alas, Bush got the blame.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We don’t hate Bush. We think he’s a complete idiot.
It’s hard to predict the future and we can’t completely blame Bush for the choices he’s made but, the fact of the matter is that his failures are the result of who he has decided to surround himself with. The president cannot be an expert at everything but he should be able to surround himself with experts. He hasn’t done this at all; in fact ignores the experts that have been in their professions longer than Bush has been in public life.
This and the fact that I beleive he lied about known intelligence and then tried to cover up this lie are a few of the many strikes agianst this man. History will judge this man harshly.[/quote]
And there it is.
He values loyalty over competence, surrounds himself with yes men (and women), he ignores his intelligent advisor’s, bipartisan committees, and Congress (which is as good as ignoring the American people).
We call him an “idiot” for these reasons. We know he can’t have all the answers, but by refusing to acknowledge any answer but his won exists, regardless of whose talking, he’s alienated the people of America.
I know that many of you think he’s dumber than a sack of potatoes and dishonest. But I think it goes deeper than this.
He knew why he was elected. Yet he chose to do mostly the opposite of the views of those who elected him. Why? I don’t think its stupidity or anything like that. Who’s pushing the buttons on this man?
It may well be that he followed the script in his first term, but then got a mind of his own in the second term. He started doing this and the ‘powers-that-be’ didn’t like it(esp with regard to the USSC).
There’s a deeper reason here beyond duplicity or stupidity.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
BabyBuster wrote:
You expect me to read all that? Couldn’t you just paraphrase? I’m a busy man.
Ummm…okay…Kings were replaced with elected officials because then who has the ‘power’, such as a president or prime minister, can be influenced or changed if necessary. Don’t like a president? Turn public opinion against him and hound him out of any real ‘power’.
So, presidents and PMs are simply frontmen for the real power in the world.
[/quote]
Exactly, imagine power coming to someone who is new to the game. He would make enormous mistakes. That’s just not happening. There is always someone behind the scenes.
He’s been a bad president, made terrible policy decisions, executed them horribly. He’s arrogant. He doesn’t listen to intelligent people within or without his party with opposing viewpoints. He’s only interested in having people parrot back to him things he’s already determined and going forth with his agenda and then finding a way to make it the most palpatable to the American people. And finding ways to make his mistakes not seem so wrong. He’s been bad for this country. What’s there to like?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I know that many of you think he’s dumber than a sack of potatoes and dishonest. But I think it goes deeper than this.
He knew why he was elected. Yet he chose to do mostly the opposite of the views of those who elected him. Why? I don’t think its stupidity or anything like that. Who’s pushing the buttons on this man?
It may well be that he followed the script in his first term, but then got a mind of his own in the second term. He started doing this and the ‘powers-that-be’ didn’t like it(esp with regard to the USSC).
There’s a deeper reason here beyond duplicity or stupidity. [/quote]
Whatever his motivation, his actions have provided enough reason to hate him or at least what he’s done to this country.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I know that many of you think he’s dumber than a sack of potatoes [/quote]
That’s not fair. I think he is smarter than a sack of potatoes. He has been placed (by the real power brokers) in every position he has ever been in.
He is where he is because he was placed there by the power brokers and the brokers and “w” were lucky enough to have candidates on the other ticket that the public could trust even less.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
With the huge tide against Bush, I was wondering why he’s fallen so far so fast? Who told him to go into Iraq with inadequate troops? Who told him to not veto any spending bills? Why did he do anything he did?
Rather than say, “He’s stupid!” or some other trite saying, could it be that he drifted away from the script? Appointing Roberts, a strict constitutional scholar, might have pissed off powerful people. Might they then use their influence to turn the country against the President?
[/quote]
I’m not gonna bother reading your mindless conspiracy theory New World Order BS, but I’ll tell you why Bush has “drifted so far from the script.”
I don’t think he’s stupid, but I do think he’s very intellectually uncurious. Domestically, any conservative principles were long ago subordinated to the driving force behind Karl Rove and thus Bush: winning elections. Bill Clinton was much the same way, although a Republican Congress pushed him into welfare reform, probably his lasting legacy.
For Bush and Rove, an enduring Republican majority is more important than any true conservative positions. Witness the massive increases in federal spending, for which justifiable defense increases make up only a part. The prescription drug benefit should appall any true conservative, but Bush happily signed it, as a bribe to seniors (and likely one that failed at that). Even on his core issues, principle takes a backseat to politics. Many conservatives and evangelicals have turned against his faith-based initiatives, because they are completely underfunded and used as a sop and enticement to Christian voters, not as a true effort to combat poverty and other social ills.
As for Iraq and all of his other foreign policy disasters, Bush follows the neo-con script, of using American military power to reshape the world in our image. Hasn’t quite worked out that way, but those people, despite being increasingly unhinged from reality, still have tremendous influence. Take a look at the genesis of the “surge” plan sometime. Hint: AEI.
There’s no conspiracy theory here, Bush has just always put politics in front of policy domestically, indeed politics dictated policy, which is not how things should work, to say the least. Internationally, he’s fallen in with a utopian camp who refuse to acknowledge their failures.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I know that many of you think he’s dumber than a sack of potatoes and dishonest. But I think it goes deeper than this.
He knew why he was elected. Yet he chose to do mostly the opposite of the views of those who elected him. Why? I don’t think its stupidity or anything like that. Who’s pushing the buttons on this man?
It may well be that he followed the script in his first term, but then got a mind of his own in the second term. He started doing this and the ‘powers-that-be’ didn’t like it(esp with regard to the USSC).
There’s a deeper reason here beyond duplicity or stupidity. [/quote]
Thats just it. He did exactly what he said he was gonna do. You all knew he was an evangelical who cared more about loyalty than competence when you elected him. You knew he wanted tax cuts for the upper class citizens. You knew he was gonna spend like a mutha fucka when you reelected him. Just b/c the conservatives plugged up their ears and refused to believe a republican wouldn’t be fiscal, doesn’t mean they didn’t know.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I know that many of you think he’s dumber than a sack of potatoes and dishonest. But I think it goes deeper than this.
He knew why he was elected. Yet he chose to do mostly the opposite of the views of those who elected him. Why? I don’t think its stupidity or anything like that. Who’s pushing the buttons on this man?
It may well be that he followed the script in his first term, but then got a mind of his own in the second term. He started doing this and the ‘powers-that-be’ didn’t like it(esp with regard to the USSC).
There’s a deeper reason here beyond duplicity or stupidity.
Thats just it. He did exactly what he said he was gonna do. You all knew he was an evangelical who cared more about loyalty than competence when you elected him. You knew he wanted tax cuts for the upper class citizens. You knew he was gonna spend like a mutha fucka when you reelected him. Just b/c the conservatives plugged up their ears and refused to believe a republican wouldn’t be fiscal, doesn’t mean they didn’t know.[/quote]
And we were were going to vote for who, exactly? Big social program democrats? I don’t think so. Voting for a republican was like choosing the lesser of two evils. For me at least. I voted for big government spenders, as opposed to the even bigger government spenders.
By the way, why the hell should I care if the wealthy got a tax break (it wasn’t only the wealthy)? What is this obsession with other people’s wealth? It’s their money! They should get an even bigger tax break!
Now, if the Repubs will put up a true fiscal conservative, social program destroying, tax slashing zealot, I’ll happily vote for them again. However, there’s little chance I’d vote for the Democratic party, ever.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
With the huge tide against Bush, I was wondering why he’s fallen so far so fast? Who told him to go into Iraq with inadequate troops? Who told him to not veto any spending bills? Why did he do anything he did?
Rather than say, “He’s stupid!” or some other trite saying, could it be that he drifted away from the script? Appointing Roberts, a strict constitutional scholar, might have pissed off powerful people. Might they then use their influence to turn the country against the President?
I’m not gonna bother reading your mindless conspiracy theory New World Order BS, but I’ll tell you why Bush has “drifted so far from the script.”
There’s no conspiracy theory here, Bush has just always put politics in front of policy domestically, indeed politics dictated policy, which is not how things should work, to say the least. Internationally, he’s fallen in with a utopian camp who refuse to acknowledge their failures.[/quote]
There are quotes in there from former presidents and others in a position to know. The stuff about ownership of the Federal Reserve, by foreign bankers, is something I didn’t know (though I haven’t researched the topic, which I will).
"In 1963, President John Kennedy wanted an end to the Federal Reserve System, which had a strangle-hold on the United States and virtually the world. By a simple stroke of the pen, President Kennedy dismissed the Federal Resene System and ordered the U.S. governmcnt to restore its Constitutional-mandate of controlling the money.
President Kennedy was dead three weeks later. When President Lyndon Johnson took office, he immediately rescinded Kennedy’s order and the Federal Reserve won another round."
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/today/articles/fedprivatelyowned.htm
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I know that many of you think he’s dumber than a sack of potatoes and dishonest. But I think it goes deeper than this.
He knew why he was elected. Yet he chose to do mostly the opposite of the views of those who elected him. Why? I don’t think its stupidity or anything like that. Who’s pushing the buttons on this man?
It may well be that he followed the script in his first term, but then got a mind of his own in the second term. He started doing this and the ‘powers-that-be’ didn’t like it(esp with regard to the USSC).
There’s a deeper reason here beyond duplicity or stupidity.
Thats just it. He did exactly what he said he was gonna do. You all knew he was an evangelical who cared more about loyalty than competence when you elected him. You knew he wanted tax cuts for the upper class citizens. You knew he was gonna spend like a mutha fucka when you reelected him. Just b/c the conservatives plugged up their ears and refused to believe a republican wouldn’t be fiscal, doesn’t mean they didn’t know.
And we were were going to vote for who, exactly? Big social program democrats? I don’t think so. Voting for a republican was like choosing the lesser of two evils. For me at least. I voted for big government spenders, as opposed to the even bigger government spenders.
By the way, why the hell should I care if the wealthy got a tax break (it wasn’t only the wealthy)? What is this obsession with other people’s wealth? It’s their money! They should get an even bigger tax break!
Now, if the Repubs will put up a true fiscal conservative, social program destroying, tax slashing zealot, I’ll happily vote for them again. However, there’s little chance I’d vote for the Democratic party, ever.[/quote]
I’m just saying they weren’t tricked. They got exactly what they were promised.
Plus, he had to be nominated first.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I know that many of you think he’s dumber than a sack of potatoes and dishonest. But I think it goes deeper than this.
He knew why he was elected. Yet he chose to do mostly the opposite of the views of those who elected him. Why? I don’t think its stupidity or anything like that. Who’s pushing the buttons on this man?
It may well be that he followed the script in his first term, but then got a mind of his own in the second term. He started doing this and the ‘powers-that-be’ didn’t like it(esp with regard to the USSC).
There’s a deeper reason here beyond duplicity or stupidity.
Thats just it. He did exactly what he said he was gonna do. You all knew he was an evangelical who cared more about loyalty than competence when you elected him. You knew he wanted tax cuts for the upper class citizens. You knew he was gonna spend like a mutha fucka when you reelected him. Just b/c the conservatives plugged up their ears and refused to believe a republican wouldn’t be fiscal, doesn’t mean they didn’t know.
And we were were going to vote for who, exactly? Big social program democrats? I don’t think so. Voting for a republican was like choosing the lesser of two evils. For me at least. I voted for big government spenders, as opposed to the even bigger government spenders.
By the way, why the hell should I care if the wealthy got a tax break (it wasn’t only the wealthy)? What is this obsession with other people’s wealth? It’s their money! They should get an even bigger tax break!
Now, if the Repubs will put up a true fiscal conservative, social program destroying, tax slashing zealot, I’ll happily vote for them again. However, there’s little chance I’d vote for the Democratic party, ever.
I’m just saying they weren’t tricked. They got exactly what they were promised.
Plus, he had to be nominated first. [/quote]
Because despite all of his short commings he was still better than Kerry; still is actually.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I know that many of you think he’s dumber than a sack of potatoes and dishonest. But I think it goes deeper than this.
He knew why he was elected. Yet he chose to do mostly the opposite of the views of those who elected him. Why? I don’t think its stupidity or anything like that. Who’s pushing the buttons on this man?
It may well be that he followed the script in his first term, but then got a mind of his own in the second term. He started doing this and the ‘powers-that-be’ didn’t like it(esp with regard to the USSC).
There’s a deeper reason here beyond duplicity or stupidity.
Thats just it. He did exactly what he said he was gonna do. You all knew he was an evangelical who cared more about loyalty than competence when you elected him. You knew he wanted tax cuts for the upper class citizens. You knew he was gonna spend like a mutha fucka when you reelected him. Just b/c the conservatives plugged up their ears and refused to believe a republican wouldn’t be fiscal, doesn’t mean they didn’t know.
And we were were going to vote for who, exactly? Big social program democrats? I don’t think so. Voting for a republican was like choosing the lesser of two evils. For me at least. I voted for big government spenders, as opposed to the even bigger government spenders.
By the way, why the hell should I care if the wealthy got a tax break (it wasn’t only the wealthy)? What is this obsession with other people’s wealth? It’s their money! They should get an even bigger tax break!
Now, if the Repubs will put up a true fiscal conservative, social program destroying, tax slashing zealot, I’ll happily vote for them again. However, there’s little chance I’d vote for the Democratic party, ever.
I’m just saying they weren’t tricked. They got exactly what they were promised.
Plus, he had to be nominated first.
Because despite all of his short commings he was still better than Kerry; still is actually.[/quote]
Hey, he’s not bush. That’s enough for me. He could be ANYBODY but Bush.
Signed,
dimwits.