They have a saying, something about when you are right, drive that home, but when you are wrong pound your fists and distract the opposition... Joe, Finn, Jespah, Debra, somebody must've heard that maxim besides me, and I know I'm not quoting it right... Can anyone supply the correct maxim?
They made a mistake, not in invading Iraq, but in the manner in which they developed the support of the American people. This lack of trust in the citizenry is disturbing and would factor more greatly in my voting decision this November if I thought the opposing candidate was worth consideration, but he is not.
Given that they have a record now of saying what is expedient to get their agenda through?
Maybe he was taught this maxim, "Success requires no apologies while failure permits no alibis?"
Or maybe he's been coached by a lawyer...
princesspupule wrote:Maybe he was taught this maxim, "Success requires no apologies while failure permits no alibis?"
Can anyone supply the correct maxim?
"Success requires no apologies; failure permits no alibis."
Napoleon Hill
The part I remember from it had the idea that you pound your fists to distract. I was thinking that George's behavior during his second debate was cut from that cloth since it was absurd and distracted his audience. Forget about it stretching the rules for debate decorum to their limit (which was the gist of the argument for ascribing to the maxim I have forgotten. 
)
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:They made a mistake, not in invading Iraq, but in the manner in which they developed the support of the American people. This lack of trust in the citizenry is disturbing and would factor more greatly in my voting decision this November if I thought the opposing candidate was worth consideration, but he is not.
So, do you trust the president and his advisors to have your best interests at heart, Finn? Or is having an agenda you agree with in part enough of a reason for you to continue to support Bush and his cronies?
princesspupule wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:They made a mistake, not in invading Iraq, but in the manner in which they developed the support of the American people. This lack of trust in the citizenry is disturbing and would factor more greatly in my voting decision this November if I thought the opposing candidate was worth consideration, but he is not.
So, do you trust the president and his advisors to have your best interests at heart, Finn? Or is having an agenda you agree with in part enough of a reason for you to continue to support Bush and his cronies?
I do trust the Bush Administration to have the best interests of the country at heart. I would trust a Kerry Administration to have the best interests of the country at heart.
I don't doubt the intentions of either of these men. What I have strong doubts about is Kerry's agenda for serving the interests of the country and the means by which he will advance that agenda.
I don't believe any administration has been or ever will be completely honest with the American people. Perhaps someday, a Saint will run for president, but I doubt it.
Bush is, by no means, the perfect president, but he is, by far, the better choice among the two.
That sort of behavior is why he couldn't wait to invade Iraq. He's a loose cannon, Finn, and that's dangerous in a leader of a nation. 
What do you see in his behavior that makes you think he deserves a second term? I don't necessarily want a saint to run our country, but I would like a rational thinker and a reasonable man who can show diplomacy rather than knee-jerk reactions. Don't you want that? Don't you see that as important in a president?
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:princesspupule wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:They made a mistake, not in invading Iraq, but in the manner in which they developed the support of the American people. This lack of trust in the citizenry is disturbing and would factor more greatly in my voting decision this November if I thought the opposing candidate was worth consideration, but he is not.
So, do you trust the president and his advisors to have your best interests at heart, Finn? Or is having an agenda you agree with in part enough of a reason for you to continue to support Bush and his cronies?
I do trust the Bush Administration to have the best interests of the country at heart. I would trust a Kerry Administration to have the best interests of the country at heart.
I don't doubt the intentions of either of these men. What I have strong doubts about is Kerry's agenda for serving the interests of the country and the means by which he will advance that agenda.
I don't believe any administration has been or ever will be completely honest with the American people. Perhaps someday, a Saint will run for president, but I doubt it.
Bush is, by no means, the perfect president, but he is, by far, the better choice among the two.
But Finn, he's quick to lose his temper. Didn't you notice the way he was jumping up and down irate in the second debate? Angry over the questions, it almost seemed.
But Finn, he's quick to lose his temper. Didn't you notice the way he was jumping up and down irate in the second debate? Angry over the questions, it almost seemed.
There are worse things that a man can do than interrupt Charlie Gibson.
We disagree if you think he his irrational and unreasonable , and a president who dismisses diplomacy.
If he were truly a loose cannon, then why hasn't he ordered strategic bombing of the nuclear facilities of North Korea or Iraq, let alone launching all out war on these countries? Why didn't he use military force to punish Syria when it became clear that it was harboring fleeing members of Iraq's Baath party? We had the troops there, his blood was up, and Syria was defying him. Surely it would be rational to expect an irrational man to react with extreme actions in such a situation.
How did we manage to put together the multi-lateral talks with North Korea if not through the use of diplomacy? Do you think he called the leaders of each nation and told them they had better send someone to the talks or we would nuke them in the morning?
Does an irrational president who rejects diplomacy and reacts automatically, engineer yet another UN Security Counsel resolution against Iraq (an a unanimous one at that) before taking the step to go to war?
I do see rational thinking and a willingness to talk before fighting as required traits in a president and I believe Bush has them. What you are drawing is a fairly ridiculous cartoon of the man, based on debate responses which were, deliberately, infused with emotion.
Bush's false sense of omnipotence, instilled within him during childhood and emboldened by his deep investment in fundamentalist religion
The president's history of untreated alcohol abuse, and the questions it raises about denial, impairment, and the enabling streak in our culture
The growing anecdotal evidence that Bush may suffer from dyslexia, ADHD, and other thought disorders
His comfort living outside the law, defying international law in his presidency as boldly as he once defied DUI statutes and military reporting requirements
His love-hate relationship with his father, and how it triggered a complex and dangerous mix of feelings including yearning, rivalry, anger, and sadism
Bush's rigid and simplistic thought patterns, paranoia, and megalomania -- and how they have driven him to invent adversaries so that he can destroy them
The great threat to our country is that these haters end up with weapons of mass destruction.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace