0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2003 12:59 am
Devotion in which one promises to obey unquestioningly, and lay ones life on the line if requested, in return for protection from larger forces. Appropriate in feudal monarchies perhaps, but not in democracies.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2003 01:06 am
I am not "Pro Bush" so much as I am opposed to confiscatory, growth-stiffling taxes, run-amuck expansion of dubious entitlements, indecipherably complex and inordinately invasive legislation, the subordination of sovereignty, and an overall pandering to an ever-decreasibg least-common-denominator. I am for security, opportunity, initiative, responsibility, and the encouragement, recognition and reward of achievement. That is what I believe this nation is built on, and it is that which I lobby for. I truly see little of that exhibited by today's Democratic Party. Quite the contrary, actually.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2003 01:25 am
Lola wrote:
Scrat?

You have a complaint against Bush. Please elaborate................go on for as long as you like, I'm all ears.

No you're not, you're all legs.

Just pay attention and you're sure to get the full picture over time, assuming you actually want an accurate picture of who I am. (I suspect you don't.)
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2003 08:19 am
"It really has the feeling to me of disconnection...that is, of a disconnection of social class and of power. Resoluteness is a quality of monarchs and popes."

Amen, Blatham. That's as good as it gets. If I had written that from the point of view of a voter down here, I might have added "deliberate disconnection" when speaking of the administration itself, and "dangerous disconnection" when speaking of its tenacious followers -- if only to try to get through to them the extent to which they are putting this country in danger.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2003 10:46 am
While there are voters who subscribe to your position, Tartarin, that subset of voters has not been among the majority of late. Whether that is good or ill is moot; the condition pertains.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2003 11:35 am
VOTE FOR MAYOR QUIMBY http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=cp_entertainment_home&articleID=1453748
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2003 11:43 am
Great link, blatham, pertinent and telling in regards the current squabbles on this thread.

Now, here's an idea ... what say we mount a campaign to elect Red Green Canada's Chief Executive? I'd be happy to chip in some duct tape. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2003 11:47 am
Tartarin wrote:
If I had written that from the point of view of a voter down here, I might have added "deliberate disconnection" when speaking of the administration itself, and "dangerous disconnection" when speaking of its tenacious followers...

Because goodness knows the administration is not only doing the wrong things, but is doing them because it likes to do what it knows is wrong, and of course anyone who disagrees with me isn't just wrong, they are also dangerous! If only we could do something to limit their rights to speak and to vote...

Rolling Eyes x infinity
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2003 01:23 pm
hobitbob wrote:
.....Fealty...what a wonderfully descriptive word. Completely innapropriate in what is ostensibly a democracy, but quite descriptive of the position many on the far right feel is appropriate in politics. Shocked


Remarkable the extent to which the PC thought police are fascinated with word choice. Perhaps that explains the explosion of absurd euphemisms that is infesting our language. Even Torquemada was not so particular about the hidden significance of such overtones in words. Why is it that the liberal zealots so love the chains that bind them?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2003 07:28 pm
Quote:
The California gubernatorial recall was launched by a group called the People's Advocate, an anti-tax organisation operated by Paul Gann and Ted Costa, the alleged brains behind the 1978 Jarvis Amendment, a.k.a. Proposition 13 (the granddaddy of California referendums, bonanza for property owners - see over page), and the outgoing state Republican chairman, Shawn Steel. In accordance with Article 2, Section 14 of the California Constitution, Gann and Co were obliged to collect signatures equal in number to 12 per cent of the last vote for the governor's office, an effort that initially floundered. But in May 2003, Congressman Darrell Issa of San Diego started his own recall effort, with a view to becoming governor himself, bankrolling the petition drive with $1.3 million of his own money, or at least what he claimed was his own money. What had begun as a quixotic canard then became a surrealist juggernaut, culminating in the ousting of Governor Gray Davis and the risible election of Arnold Schwarzenegger, action figure, as the custodian of the world's fifth largest economy.

Like Schwarzenegger, Congressman Issa has a piquant history. In the early 1980s, his car-alarm company, which did work for a much larger firm, Joey Adkins's A.C. Custom Electronics, lent Adkins $60,000, then called in the loan. Issa went to court, and wrested possession of Adkins's firm. Three weeks after Issa quadrupled the insurance on parts and equipment in the building, the electronics facility burned to the ground.

In 1973, Issa pleaded guilty to possession of an unregistered firearm, which he tended to brandish at his employees, purportedly in jest. He was arrested twice for grand theft auto. In his unsuccessful 1998 run for the Senate, he claimed that he had been a member of Nixon's security detail during the 1971 World Series. Nixon did not attend the 1971 World Series. After a 2001 trip to the Middle East, Issa, an Arab-American, announced that Hezbollah is not a terrorist organisation.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n21/indi01_.html
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2003 08:10 pm
California brought it on itself, and Californians should be grateful they wound up with nothing worse than Ahnuld.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2003 08:28 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
hobitbob wrote:
.....Fealty...what a wonderfully descriptive word. Completely innapropriate in what is ostensibly a democracy, but quite descriptive of the position many on the far right feel is appropriate in politics. Shocked


Remarkable the extent to which the PC thought police are fascinated with word choice. Perhaps that explains the explosion of absurd euphemisms that is infesting our language. Even Torquemada was not so particular about the hidden significance of such overtones in words. Why is it that the liberal zealots so love the chains that bind them?

Er...I'm not the one who is pledging total loyalty and obedience to one man, George, you are.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2003 08:37 pm
Quote:
Resolution in such situations is often more important than curiosity, humor, or humility.

george...no it isn't, not if that's the only arrow in the quiver. It's also a hell of a lot easier to fake.
Quote:
While you are perhaps bewildered by the fealty others show for Bush in the face of your criticism, recognize that others are just as bewildered by the strange intensity of your antipathy. One could even describe it as dogmatic and unyielding in its partisanship.
I'm bewildered by fealty anytime anywhere. Respect I understand. This man does not have my respect because he doesn't deserve it, for the many reasons I and others have elucidated. Antipathy, disdain...yes, those are appropriate terms to describe my opinions of the fellow.

I grant him nothing because of his office. On the contrary, I feel contempt for his hubristic assumption of it. Not because he is a republican (I would have quite possibly voted for McCain over Gore) but because he is by far the least talented man to hold that office in my lifetime, and possibly in the history of your country.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2003 08:43 pm
I definitely would have voted for McCain over Gore. On all tthe other points, I totally agree.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 03:52 am
Quote:
"[A]s you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say."

--GWB, Oct. 28, 2003
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 08:48 am
Oh lordie, PDiddie, what a wonderful quote! Where are you, Lola?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 11:04 am
hobitbob wrote:
......Er...I'm not the one who is pledging total loyalty and obedience to one man, George, you are.


Where did you get that? I certainly never said or suggested it.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 11:41 am
georgebob1 wrote:
While you are perhaps bewildered by the fealty others show for Bush

did you forget this statement? Perhaps you should avoid using words whose meaning you are unsure of.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 11:57 am
Not at all. One can easily see that the two statements are very far from equivalent. Perhaps you don't see well.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2003 12:01 pm
Perhaps I am not blinded by ideology, as you seem to be.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/04/2024 at 09:37:26