As a woman, I prefer to live in an apartment.............
Bumpy, clever and functioning frequently.........that's what I like.
What is it about bumpy! When I read Dys's post, my first thought was about good tollhouse cookies -- the bumpiest ones are the best (more chocky).
Bumpy....what george bush's brain isn't very.
Blatham,
Do you really know that to be true? Even the "uncurious" bit involves a rather large presumption on your part. It is a common mistake to confuse garrolous indecision with intelligence, just as it is common to confuse to confuse deliberate resolution with the lack of it - particularly among those who chatter for a living.
george
You excuse this man far too easily. I know enough about you, for example, to recognize that you are a far more curious fellow than is he. I've gained this 'knowledge' by reading what you've written. That inference is the means by which I make this conclusion about you doesn't make my conclusion invalid...any reasonable person would conclude likewise. To conclude you were NOT curious would be the unreasonable conclusion.
Do you seriously believe this man has ever opened a philosophy text? Do you think he could chat with you about Shakespeare or Whitman? For goodness sake...even his knowledge of the world outside of the US was, in running for this office, more paltry than most of the people on this thread, and that is evidenced by his words (I can dig up many more examples than you'd be comfortable reading).
I don't confuse garrolous indecision with intelligence or resolution with the lack of intelligence. And if I hear the term 'resolute' attached to this man one more time I will get seriously ill. THAT IS THE PRESENTATION george. You watch the public appearances that are arranged for this fellow, and how many place him in front of a group of flag waving soldiers...or go back and read the interviews/speeches by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, all of them, and count the number of times 'resolute' is applied as an adjective.
We need to bring on those who actually know the guy -- there are a couple or three who have opined here in the past. I don't know Jr. personally, but I know his family (part of my childhood, growing up). I have nothing good to say about them, and I would have said that years before I ever became a Dem or voted or cared a damn about politics. They are ambitious, narcissistic, tend to do criminal stuff and get away with it (most of the time, or get bailed out easily). They have little regard for people they can't use. They are simply godawful -- worst examples of New England (and Texas) parvenues. It takes talent to be a parvenu who also has the distinction of being Mayflower descendants, but the Bushes developed that talent over the years... The only people I know who like them are those who are getting something from them. In other words, other climbers.
Tart, I don't have any family familiarity with The Bush clan, but by accident of birth, I'm quite familiar with the Kennedys. Apart from the Texas observation, I'd apply your entire comment to them as entirely apt, if not quite sufficiently perjorative or far-reaching.
The Kennedys and the Bush family are very different in background and style, and quite similar in some of their more visible traits. Joe (the father) was a real bastard in many ways, and Honey Fitz was at best a colorful character. However, a number of the kids turned out to be quite special -- I'd put both JFK and Bobby in the category and (once he'd grown up) Ted as well and no ha-ha Chappaquidick comments will change my mind on that! I don't think it's political bias that so many people feel warmly about (and know a good deal more about) the Kennedys than the Bushes. Although there are probably still a couple of people in Boston who stick their noses up at the Kennedys, there's a surprising amount of real admiration too. For me (and apparently for many others) the cold greed of the Bushes and the group they've constructed around them is mighty unattractive. There's nothing about a Bush which would make one sigh and say, There goes a good American.
It's absolutely true, Tartarin. My conversations, backline with Mamajuana in the past have more than confirmed what I already knew about Bush The Learning Disabled. He's profoundly narcissistic and out of control. Very bad temper........he's infamous on this score. And I know some other family realities which I will not post publicly but will be glad to share with anyone interested privately. The fact that this man is now the President of the US is absolutely mind boggling!
Blatham posted this link on other threads, but I think it's appropriate here as well:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-3-77-1542.jsp
Read this please.
Yes, the Strauss link is interesting -- and I remember, too, the mini-conversations here among those who have had personal experiences with Bush. He is horrendous.
It's often lucky, but awkward, when one has had some social or personal relationship with people "in the news," from some Hollywood character like Ahnold, to Straussies and Bushies. My peripatetic life put me in the midst of Straussies at Harvard back in the late '50's, early '60's. It's hard not to spill all, be a kind of Rona Barrett of the neo-cons! The same with those who have known Bush (himself) socially, up close and personal. One's instincts naturally lead one to some discretion. In any case, the mini-neocons and others here in A2K are determined not to believe anything real, whether it's about the actual behaviors of their heroes or the intellectual background of the hero's advisors... or, hey, even the indiscretions of Ahnold. It's particularly hard on these older patriarchs when it's a woman who points the finger, knows the score! Those legs, Lola! They're not supposed to be attached to a brain!
I also remember, in Abuzz, the unwillingness of Bush-haters to understand that it's possible to exert personal charm (or even have it) if one's a monster. The reason Bush was chosen for leadership was precisely of his ability to act the part, albeit with comic book flair (and with props).
There are fairy stories about the charming monster as well as a human reality there (hey, Bruno B., where's my memory when I need it!), but there are also those who will say, utterly convinced, that Bush cannot be both a monster (morally) while personally charming (socially). But he can and is, particularly when he wants to be -- when it serves him. Doubtless there is someone standing by, ready to act, should a temper tantrum threaten!...
Tartarin wrote: The reason Bush was chosen for leadership was precisely of his ability to act the part, albeit with comic book flair (and with props).
Seems to be the No# 1 requirement for advancement in the Republican party..........Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, DeLay, Ahnold - the mold is unbroken!
Bill -- I was reading a preview in yesterday's NYTimes of a TV film about Ronnie and Nancy R. which is said to be NOT pure hagiography (though probably closer than the Times writer chose to say!). Played by James Brolin and Judy Davis. The choice of the latter is interesting: Davis is ascerbic, has a take no hostages nature in her acting. Which is a lot like Nancy.
The Reagan presidency is a perfect example of the trivializing of the office, the increasing hunger for the trivial, the light-weight, the fast food on the part of many Americans. Nixon was a bitch, but at least one could take him seriously, respect him for some good instincts...
Tart,
".. not pure hagiography.." is likely to be an understatement. Hatchet job may prove to be more accurate. Do you know Nancy Reagan? Do you know she is "acerbic, has a take no hostages attitude.." ? Or are you just spouting off the predigested views of others?
Do you really believe the Reagan Administrations focused on trivial issues and "trivialized the office"? It seems to me that he focused squarely on the most fundamental, daunting, and critical issues then facing the nation; double digit runaway inflation and no growth in the economy --remember "stagflation"?; a depressed and defeatist atmosphere in the West in which we believed we needed a period of "detente" with an increasingly strong Soviet Empire, just to lick our wounds; a burdensome and inefficient tax structure that was feeding the growing underground (untaxed)economy and spawning inefficient use of capital merely to support tax evasion schemes; a then growing sense of dependence on government in a country that had grown and prospered based on ideas of individual freedom, responsibility, and initiative.
Compare that to Clinton's dithering, glib and effective parsing of the issues before us, coupled with studied inaction in dealing with any of them.
I kinda figure that the Bush having a MBA is creating a pyramid scheme with the White House/DOD/DOJ at the top followed closely by the Supremes and Congress and we the people buying the soap (whitewash comes to mind) so perhaps Amway is the American Way.
George, let me point out the massive tax evasion schemes both Reagan and the latest Bush have managed to pull off to benefit their friends and supporters. Whether Nancy Reagan is a witch (she is) or not is small pickin's compared to what her fellas got up to! But why argue: you have bought into a mythology which many of us see as a mythology, carefully concocted, constructed behind the scenes. You seem too perceptive to be fooled, but you have been fooled. If we argue, I expect it's simply that you don't understand how I have the gall to challenge your mythology, and quite broadly at that. You probably think it's rude of me. I'm a democrat (small as well as large "d") and I'll continue to do my damnedest to destroy the beast of the imperial presidency and the mythology which feeds it.
Dys -- Take a look at Bush's actual records as a businessman, Nat'l Guardsman (okay, try not to laugh!). Ask yourself what kind of president you think we ought to have, given the goals and ideals of America.
Then weep.
Mythology built around cartoon characters - and that is from someone who isn't a democrat (little "d")! I guess, you could say I'm Not a Republican as my affliation (large "N" & "R").
Won't hold up in history, only proped up by present day illusion.
ok so what reason was given for sealing Bush's records?
According to that site, they are public.
