I Got 99 Problems And George Bush Is One

Thanks, McG!!!

JustWonders, i can only shake my head in amazement at the amount of partisan drivel you spew . . .

Might want to go get a wetnap to get some of that black off your hands there Setanta...


(Pot calling kettle black for the slower people)

I see you're in the automatic slander mode, McG . . . this is the first and only post i have in this thread . . . but don't let that stop you, Provocateur . . .

Just Wonders
Just Wonders, you wrote something very important with which I agree: "While I don't think the upper class is comprised mainly of "leftists" I think you'd be hard put to convince the heartland of this. Yes, they know Mr. Bush comes from a privileged background, but he doesn't come off as "elitist", has the common touch and is seen as genuine. These are people who, right or wrong, see the left as arrogant and as trying to "correct" them, rather than understand them."

You have precisely identified the problem that is so frustrating to me. The so-called "heartland" people vote based on the style of the candidate and social issues, including religion, over which the president has no authority or control. Style is only important with regard to communication style. I'm puzzled that people will vote for style instead of what is in their family's survival interests. What riles me is that if this attitude suits their life ambitions, then that's fine with me. But when they try to take me down that path with them, that is not acceptable.

I think I deserve your respect as a good and caring citizen, not your disdain. I love my country. I've worked hard all of my life to improve the conditions of the people living in my communities. I'm not arrogant nor am I elitist. In fact, I'm at my core a working class person. When I see my class being threatened by the wealthy elitist class, I speak out. If you want to call that trying to correct the "heartland" voters, so be it. I'm trying to open their eyes as to how our government really works in tandem with their elite class exploiters. I care about the issues that George Bush does and can control. I care that the national and international corporations have more control over my country's government and my life than all of our combined votes---just the way George Bush likes it.

The "heartland" citizens will vote for George Bush when our economy is a mess and the middle class, which took decades to create, is slowly being decimated; our health care system is a disaster; our commonly owned infrastructure is crumbling due to lack of investment; our education system is failing; our foreign policy has made us less safe; our military is severely damaged and our men and women are dying in an unjustified and badly planned war; our homeland security is largely cosmetic propaganda because Bush doesn't have the money to use for it having squandered it in Iraq and he won't force the corporations to improve their security of the facilities against terrorist attack; and our country is more polarized than ever before at a time we need to unite. The Bush administration demonstrates a fine talent for using social wedge issues to divide us.

The Bush-Walker families have a nasty history of manipulating the middle class to vote for their self-serving policies just like the robber baron families of the last century. If you have not educated yourself about their family history, you have no standing to criticize those of us who have.

We really are in an economic class war. The "heatland" voters see it only as a social war. They had better wake up to the reality of what is going on or there will be only two classes in this country---the rich and the poor. A century of building a middle class will be lost.

The voters of which you wrote see only the image of George Bush without examining those with whom he has surrounded himself. Bush is the public image stand-in for the elitist character of many of those in his administration. George Bush has managed to create a false image of himself to fit with what appeals to the "heartland" voters. He uses "hot button" social and emotional issues to control their votes. He laughs behind their backs---all the way to the bank.

BBB

Well McG, maybe a lot of our lawmakers are half as smart as ILZ

Go here to see them
Timber
Can you point to any other piece of federal legislation that has received similar reaction from state and local governments?

URL = broke, mesquite.

Cycloptichorn

Just. Debs esteemed standing and record of courtesy would appear to indemnify her from anything even barely resembling a lecture. Good Liberals is really not a contradiction of terms as it applies to this distinguished colleague.

Automatic? ME?! Nah. You were hardly referring to JustWonders post in this thread, but most of her(?) posts. Just as I was referring to most of yours.

Do you deny that you tend to make partisan posts?

You were the one that decided to use the phrase "partisan drivel you spew". I am impressed how you turned that around and made it look as though I were the one committing slander.

Oh, we all make partisan posts, grumble grumble...

Setanta has a long history of presenting a well-thought out position. While you may or may not agree with it, you can hardly call it 'drivel.'

Thus, the 'pot-kettle' analogy fails in this case.

Cycloptichorn

Intermixed with Setanta's more thoughtful posts is a lot of drivel, believe me. I just call them like I see them.

"You can observe a lot by watching." - Yogi Berra

In the first place, i have absolutely no experience of JustWonders contributions to these foras other than this thread, so your statement about "hardly referring to JustWonders post in this thread" is a completely unwarranted assumption on your part--which does not surprise me. If you want to provide examples of partisan drivel which i have posted, you may help yourself. Making statements about what liberals believe, withoug qualification, implies that the statement applies to all liberals, which is partisan drivel, since neither the entirety of liberals nor the entirety of conservatives can be characterized as believing one thing or another. I make post which could be characterized as partisan, in that others do not agree with them. I have never, however, claimed to support Kerry or his programs, claimed to support the Democratic Party or its programs, nor have i ever endorsed the ideology of an individual or group--so calling what i post partisan is very much in the eye of the beholder. I tend to use qualifiers--some conservatives, most of those on the right, etc. I acknowledge that i may occassionally fail to do so, but then the burden of proof is till on someone else that it is drivel. I also use qualifiers such as "seem to," "in my never humble opinion." Such qualifiers are important, as they remove the taint of absolutism and unilateralism from the opinion being offered. Do i think i post drivel? Of course not. Even those who do routinely post drivel very likely do not think so. How much less likely in my case, as i never do post drivel. I will post doggerel. I will post absurdity. I will post esoteric crap which it would be absurd to believe anyone else understands. I do not post drivel.

JustWonders has made 3 posts in this thread. None of which, in my opinion, are drivel.

Your single contribution in this thread amounted to:



You mean to tell me that you are basing your statement on three posts? That amounts to what you would see as an over-abundance of partisan drivel?

If you have no exposure to JustWonders contributions, how could 3 posts possibly amaze you? I assumed that your mastery of the English language, as you have proven many, many times, was such that you wouldn't make a mistake in such detail. Were you talking about Swolf, Karzak, heck, even me, I could understand your point. There are many people here that love to hear the sound of their own typing, but, as you have now pointed out, you have little exposure to JustWonders contributions.

How is it that you have been amazed then?

The post quoted above can be considered drivel.

and yet here you are participating in every one of these sickening threads and posting your own for the express purpose of bringing the very people who make you retch running to you......now, I 'm not saying I know, and I'm not even trying to intimate that this could be true but......your post COULD lead a person to conclude that either a: You really dig retching and puking....b: you have a case of sour grapes over the fact that most of the people who make you want to retch are more well liked than you....or c: maybe there is something to this retarded thing after all.......of course, these are just possibilities that I'm throwing out there and certainly do not reflect my own opinions or beliefs...... I think you're a hell of a guy.....

Dys posts drivel, ha ha ha ha.

Consider what it pleases you to do, McG. I assure you that it is a matter of complete indifference to me.

Ok, then.

They'll vote for Bush for three reasons.

1: They are scared of terrorism.
2: They are scared of fags getting rights.
3: They are scared of having to think for themselves.

I have a rather dismal opinion of the majority of voters; they don't educate themselves, they don't look into issues, they prefer drama and mudslinging to actual substantive debate.

Some people are not inclined to follow the debate; some are not intelligent enough to do so. Nevertheless, on what basis do these people vote? Image. Such as described by Justwonders.

Bush is an image president.

He talks about cleaning up the environment, but then signs into legislation bills which make things far worse.

He talks about being a Christian, but his actions show him to be far from a true Christian (someone needs to get the guy a WWJD? braclet, sheesh).

He talks about unifying America but enacts policies to divide us.

He talks about supporting veterans and then tries to cut their medical benefits by millions of dollars.
He talks about running our economy efficiently, but we now have a gigantic defecit.

He talks about respecting our alliances but then throws them away when they don't agree with us.

He talks about leaving Iraq, but we still don't have a clear exit strategy.

He talks about the value of science, but then alters reports given to him before they are presented to the public.

He talks about running a clean campaign, and then spends 70% of his time running attack ads.

He talks about honoring the memory of 9/11, and then uses it as a political tool to get re-elected.

He talks about finding out the truth about 9/11, and then opposes the creation of the commission to do so.

He talks about fixing Social Security, but still has no real plan for doing so.

He talks about homeland defense, but then massively underfunds our ability to do so.

He talks about the safety of troops in Iraq, but then doesn't send proper safety equipment for our troops.

He talks about combating terrorism, and then sends us to fight a war in Iraq instead of hunting down OBL and AQ.

The problem is, the vast majority of people don't watch long enough to find out that Bush CONSISTENTLY fails to uphold his promises! They hear the sound byte, and that's good enough for them.

It's depressing. I just wish more people would get active, no matter what side they are for....

Cycloptichorn