People of Compassion

au1929 wrote:

au1929 wrote:

In addition he did not receive a mandate from the American people....

Brandon9000 wrote:

And, therefore, what?

Since he did not receive a mandate and in fact lost the popular vote it was obvious that at least 50% of the American people did not support him. Any logical and right thinking individual would not have ignored half the electorate as he has done and said it's my way or the highway. He did and that is why the country is as divided as it is. And that is why half the population of the US literally hates Bush. Again never in my memory have I ever seen the hatred of a sitting president as I have this one. A president if he is worth anything once elected must be president to all the people not just his constituents.

It is a very standard idea that a presidential candidate clearly states his political orientation, and then, as president, implements those policies he believes are right and necessary, regardless of whether he won by a significant majority or not. It is no vice for a president to use his own judgement and ethics, and no virtue to rule by polls.[/quote[/color]]

Bush did state state his political orientation, he was going to be a "compassionate conservative who will end partisan politics" Like all his other statements, this one turned out to be a lie or failed statement too.

Good point about Clinton and Reagan, dookie.

Clinton of course was never a liberal. As Michael Moore said, "he was the best Republican President we ever had".

And Reagan was a staunch conservative who appealed more to what the Dems used to be, ie., political moderates.

No why would I ever assume that you would endorse my opinion of Bush's policies? Since I don't assume that to be true, there is nothing to rethink, Larry434.

No why would I ever assume that you would endorse my opinion of Bush's policies? Since I don't assume that to be true, there is nothing to rethink, Larry434.

So, in your own little world, our country is totally unified, peaceful and happy?

LOL!!!!!! Try telling that to the hundreds of thousands of protestors who are p*ssed at Bush and his policies.

Actually, I should have said "thanx for reinforcing my point regarding Dumbya's divisive policies." Obviously, these divisive policies haven't failed, but have succeeded in every sense of the word.

I never said you endorsed my opinion of Bush's divisive policies. Try looking up "endorse" and "reinforcement" regarding MY point. But before you do that, read through the threads again, because it's obvious you've lost your way in the argument already through tangential debate. Reinforcement doesn't mean that you AGREE with my opinion.

Boy, this all sounds SO familiar, like somebody I used to debate with on Abuzz by the name of Pragmaticone.

Larry434:

Would you agree that under Clinton and Reagan, the nation wasn't NEARLY as polarized and divisive? Oh, and it wasn't that you were reinforcing my "opinion," as you initially stated. I made a point, and in your follow-up statement, you reinforced it by basically agreeing that under BOTH Reagan and Clinton, the nation WAS less polarized, as both presidents garnered votes from their political opposites.

In which you followed by stating "good point."

So, what part of this is still unclear to you?

I don't want to waste time in a debate over what you think I meant, dookie.

Oh, yeah, this liar:

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/2003_03_10_weblog_archive.htm

Lies aplenty from this moron. Too bad Dumbya didn't just lie about a BJ and nothing else. But then again, I guess he'd be impeached as well.

LOL!!!!!!!

Brandon9000 wrote:

au1929 wrote:

au1929 wrote:

In addition he did not receive a mandate from the American people....

Brandon9000 wrote:

And, therefore, what?

Since he did not receive a mandate and in fact lost the popular vote it was obvious that at least 50% of the American people did not support him. Any logical and right thinking individual would not have ignored half the electorate as he has done and said it's my way or the highway. He did and that is why the country is as divided as it is. And that is why half the population of the US literally hates Bush. Again never in my memory have I ever seen the hatred of a sitting president as I have this one. A president if he is worth anything once elected must be president to all the people not just his constituents.

It is a very standard idea that a presidential candidate clearly states his political orientation, and then, as president, implements those policies he believes are right and necessary, regardless of whether he won by a significant majority or not. It is no vice for a president to use his own judgement and ethics, and no virtue to rule by polls.[/quote[/color]]

Bush did state state his political orientation, he was going to be a "compassionate conservative who will end partisan politics" Like all his other statements, this one turned out to be a lie or failed statement too.

1. You implied that in the absence of an electoral mandate, a candidate was compelled to take centrist policies, and I dispute that totally. A president is perfectly entitled to act according to his judgement and own set of morals.

2. As for the new subject you have just started, whether Bush can or cannot be categorized as a compassionate conservative, I suspect that one could find numerous cases of him acting with compassion, e.g. money to Africa for AIDS. Now you can probably point to some case and say, "Look someone got hurt here," or "someone wasn't helped here," as you could with any president, and present it as evidence that Bush was not "compassionate," but in most of those cases, I suspect that the issue would be much more complex. For instance, Clinton bombed Serbia back to the Stone Age, but it actually was an example of compassion, since his motive was to force them to stop ethnic cleansing of the ethnic Albanians.