Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

old europe wrote:

Foxy,

the point is just that Bush doesn't really give so many speeches. I am, of course, considering the whole context of his speech. But I cannot consider a non-existent context.

We'll have to see whether or not he's going to expand on some points. Would be fair enough to reevaluate his speech then. On the other hand, I specifically want the president to explain what he meant, not somebody else give an interpretation.

He gives enough speeches to get a pretty good idea of where he's coming from OE. The whole context of one speech is often not sufficient to get the whole gist of his policy or opinions about any given subject. The thing is he has expanded on a lot of these points in other settings, and this is what I meant by considering the whole context. I wish he had expanded more on some in the SOTU, but I guess there is only so much you can cram into one speech encompassing so many different subjects.

I agree with you that it is far better that he explain himself than have somebody else give their (often erroneous) interpretation of what he said and what he meant.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
On the WMDs, I'm pretty sure the issue is being reopened basedon information in a new book by one of Saddam's head guys. This book fully explains that massive amounts of WMDs were trucked and flown over to Syria during those weeks Bush was trying to convince the UN to act.

Of course the MSM is trying very hard to ignore this as it is going to make a whole lot of their favorites look very silly all these years they have condemned Bush for lying about the WMDs.

Wanna join the bet?

Sure. I'll bet you a MacDonald's Big Mac that there was far more to the reality of WMDs at the time of the Iraq invasion than what has thus far been demonstrated.

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

old europe wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
You're on, OE

JW, are we going to agree on an exchange rate now, or will that just be part of the game in order to increase the suspense?

Your choice

Alright then, I think that should be part of the game! What about a timeframe?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

He gives enough speeches to get a pretty good idea of where he's coming from OE. The whole context of one speech is often not sufficient to get the whole gist of his policy or opinions about any given subject. The thing is he has expanded on a lot of these points in other settings, and this is what I meant by considering the whole context. I wish he had expanded more on some in the SOTU, but I guess there is only so much you can cram into one speech encompassing so many different subjects.

I agree with you that it is far better that he explain himself than have somebody else give their (often erroneous) interpretation of what he said and what he meant.

He might give "enough" speeches, but he's certainly not giving "a lot" of speeches. Nevertheless, I'm really just referring to the ideas I heard him mentioning the first time now in the SOTU.

The whole "America is addicted to oil" thing, for example, totally lacks any Bush-related context to be put into.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

JustWonders wrote:
old europe wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
You're on, OE

JW, are we going to agree on an exchange rate now, or will that just be part of the game in order to increase the suspense?

Your choice

Alright then, I think that should be part of the game! What about a timeframe?

Okfine. We conservatives tend to be patient (could be my middle name), but, if you insist.

0 Replies

So when are we going to put a man on Mars?

0 Replies

Splendid, JustPatientWonders! Very Happy

Any suggestion?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

So when are we going to put a man on Mars?

Shhht, poopity head.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Anon and Mysteryman: I have to admit I'm getting annoyed with your bickering, which already got the other thread locked for good. Could the two of you take it to e-mail, please? I would appreciate it.

I apologize.
I posted his words and he got angry.
I am just trying to find out why he got mad.

Since he is afraid to answer,I'll drop it.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Splendid, JustPatientWonders!

Any suggestion?

Well, I'm hoping the new investigation will be based on some of the thousands of documents we've uncovered since the invasion. That could take time. Also, you know how slow these committees proceed sometimes (well, maybe you don't know that being in Europe - just take my word).

The Left were the ones primarily clammoring for Bush to go to the UN (a process that took months and consequently gave Saddam time to spirit the WMD to Syria), but I forget how many months exactly.

How patient are you?

0 Replies

I'm quite patient, actually.

But it seems to be a good idea to base the timeframe on the Bush-Saddam-UN process. Now, how long was that again? The invasion began on March 20, 2003.

When was it mentioned the first time that Saddam had WMD? (Hey, and I'm obviously talking about the relatively recent events that led up the IW2, not about what happened some 15 years ago....)

0 Replies

We could await the results of this new investigation. Does that work for you?

0 Replies

Uh, wouldn't that kinda change the content of our bet? We would basically rather bet on the results of the committee findings rather than on actual factual proof of WMD in Syria......... kind of.

But whatever! Works! Deal!

Cool

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
He gives enough speeches to get a pretty good idea of where he's coming from OE. The whole context of one speech is often not sufficient to get the whole gist of his policy or opinions about any given subject. The thing is he has expanded on a lot of these points in other settings, and this is what I meant by considering the whole context. I wish he had expanded more on some in the SOTU, but I guess there is only so much you can cram into one speech encompassing so many different subjects.

I agree with you that it is far better that he explain himself than have somebody else give their (often erroneous) interpretation of what he said and what he meant.

He might give "enough" speeches, but he's certainly not giving "a lot" of speeches. Nevertheless, I'm really just referring to the ideas I heard him mentioning the first time now in the SOTU.

The whole "America is addicted to oil" thing, for example, totally lacks any Bush-related context to be put into.

Bush probably gives as many speeches as any president, but many are in specific settings that don't get a lot of press. He was here in Albuquerque this week for instance, and local radio carried his remarks but network television really downplayed it.

In person, Bush is friendly, candid, genuine, and likeable. All of us wish he was a more proficient orator, but I guess for more supporters, that's not at the top of the list of qualities we want in our national leaders.

Acknowledged you were referring primarily to the SOTU. My point was that we don't give him full credit for his policies or thought processes if we use only that to assess him.

Agreed that the 'addicted to oil' was a completely new (and surprising)phrase. This is one of those things I wish he had expanded on more. Was the meaning for instance a) he was acknowledging that we are too dependent on oil and this is bad national policy? or b) he was conceding that the only way we can break our dependency on Middle East oil is to develop alternate energy sources? or c) both? But I know that on down the line he will talk about this some more and will clarify his intent and meaning.

0 Replies

Okay. I'm betting that this new investigation proves once and for all that WMDs existed in Iraq and were moved to Syria (where they're now sitting...buried somewhere, I'd imagine).

Now, I'm off for some fun in the sun. Have a nice day! Smile

0 Replies

Yay!

Already dark here. Sigh. Have fun in the sun!

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Anon and Mysteryman: I have to admit I'm getting annoyed with your bickering, which already got the other thread locked for good. Could the two of you take it to e-mail, please? I would appreciate it.

Thomas,

I am not bickering. If you had been paying attention like the smart boy you like to think you are, you would have noticed that I have not responded nor have I addressed him directly or by innuendo since the thread lock. (except for telling him that I'm not doing it again) Since you have such a high opinion of your supposed intellect and high mindedness, I would have hoped you had noticed. Apparently you are not as smart or quick as you would like to think! If you have something to say, say it to MM, because I'm not the problem.

Anon

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

I apologize.
I posted his words and he got angry.
I am just trying to find out why he got mad.

Since he is afraid to answer,I'll drop it.

Anon-Voter wrote:

I am not bickering. If you had been paying attention like the smart boy you like to think you are, you would have noticed that I have not responded nor have I addressed him directly or by innuendo since the thread lock. (except for telling him that I'm not doing it again) Since you have such a high opinion of your supposed intellect and high mindedness, I would have hoped you had noticed. Apparently you are not as smart or quick as you would like to think! If you have something to say, say it to MM, because I'm not the problem.

It was foolish of me to bother. Never mind Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

In person, Bush is friendly, candid, genuine, and likeable.

I haven't met him in person so far. I haven't even seen him in person so far. When he came to visit Europe, he was so shielded from the public (unlike Clinton, Bush senior or Reagan, by the way) that it was totally impossible to get a glimpse.

Neither have I managed to attend one of his speeches whenever I was in the States. A pity, really.

However, when somebody argues that "Bush is friendly, candid, genuine, and likeable" I can't help but think what an elitist, spoilt son-of-a-multimillionaire he really is. Much like the Hilton daughters. Not that that has to be something negative (okay, I shouldn't have mentioned the Hiltons then), but he is just so unlike the average American. At least unlike 99,99 percent.

And then, I still remember some of the instances when he was not so shielded (like when that one Irish gal, whatshername, Carole Coleman got to interview him), and all of a sudden he was just not very likeable anymore.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
In person, Bush is friendly, candid, genuine, and likeable.

I haven't met him in person so far. I haven't even seen him in person so far. When he came to visit Europe, he was so shielded from the public (unlike Clinton, Bush senior or Reagan, by the way) that it was totally impossible to get a glimpse.

Neither have I managed to attend one of his speeches whenever I was in the States. A pity, really.

However, when somebody argues that "Bush is friendly, candid, genuine, and likeable" I can't help but think what an elitist, spoilt son-of-a-multimillionaire he really is. Much like the Hilton daughters. Not that that has to be something negative (okay, I shouldn't have mentioned the Hiltons then), but he is just so unlike the average American. At least unlike 99,99 percent.

And then, I still remember some of the instances when he was not so shielded (like when that one Irish gal, whatshername, Carole Coleman got to interview him), and all of a sudden he was just not very likeable anymore.

I see. I think he's friendly, candid, genuine, and likeable, and this makes you think he's elitist and spoilt son-of-a-multimillionaire. I'm sure there's a rationale for why that is reasonable, but I can't help but think it is more descriptive of personal bias and prejudice than based on anything like fact. Smile

If you can lay your hands on a copy of Sammons "Misunderestimated" about President Bush, just read the first chapter. This will do wonders for understanding why he is frequently less accessible to the general public than previous presidents have been. No other president in my lifetime--and that's a pretty long lifetime by now--has had these particular dynamics to deal with.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know