Reply
Tue 14 Feb, 2006 01:31 am
In the 2000 campaign, George Bush campaigned that he wanted to end all the division in Washington. He wanted to bring people together.
Six years later, do you think he has brought the country closer together or are things more partisan than ever ?
Not just the US, surely .... consider the state of the world, before & after!
I understand that Bush is President, but it was the Vice-President who brought together the team. From that point of view, I think of their tenure as the Cheney-Bush tandem, not Bush-Cheney. For me, this helps explain their variance with Bush senior's approach to government.
To me the Bush-Cheney approach is more divisive.
I think Bush has done a great job ... uniting the countries who hate our guts and want us dead!!
Anon
Anon-Voter wrote:I think Bush has done a great job ... uniting the countries who hate our guts and want us dead!!
Anon
@ Anon........ but its true
Did Martin Luther King Jr., in his own time, unite or divide America? Divide of course, since he lead black people to peacefully demand their rights. People were marching through the streets while local police forces tried to stop them with water cannon. The movie, "Mississippi Burning" depicts the murder of three civil rights workers by police in 1964. It doesn't show a country united - quite the opposite. In fact, in his own time, MLK polarized the country. How did he do it? By being very insistent about a truth that not everyone wanted to hear: all men are created equal.
The people who wrote the Declaration of Independence also increased the polarization in the country by doing the right thing.
My point is this: doing the right thing doesn't always have the immediate effect of uniting a country, and polarizing the country doesn't mean that what you're doing isn't right.
And another post from up-side-downland.
The evidence for Bush uniting a country/world is that it is now more divided. That's how you spot a uniter, he divides.
Pressing peacefully for the social and economic inclusion and equal rights for blacks in a context of deep national and institutional racism is EXACTLY LIKE disenfranchising blacks at the polling booths in Florida and Ohio. It's EXACTLY LIKE defining and portraying members of a world religion that isn't christianity as godless, evil and out to kill everything holy. Etc etc.
Brandon's way of thinking bears no resemblance to any brand of conservatism. What it is more clearly seen as is a cult of authoritarianism.
I think that political and cultural division has always existed in the US, but in many cases, it simply was not discussed in public to the extent that it is now. With Bush, he has drawn the line in the sand.
I believe he has united all the whacko's, mental patients, uneducated youth, over-educated pseudo-intellectuals, as well as the dotty, aberrant, delusional, eccentric, odd, queer, strange, foolish, senseless, witless, irrational, unreasonable, delirious, distraught, frantic, frenzied, and hysterical against him.
That has to be good for the country. Keeping the loons busy hating Bush while the country moves on without them.
McGentrix finally found the chance to blow the dust off his thesaurus.
Dust off, sure. But what about the old gravy and DNA-rich ooze?
You gotta break eggs to make omelets.
A good thesaurus is vital. I didn't want to miss anyone.
McGentrix wrote:A good thesaurus is vital. I didn't want to miss anyone.
In that case, next to your thesaurus, set up one of those cute little make-up mirrors.
What is that in your avatar, McGentrix? It looks vaguely familiar, but I forget what it is.
Brandon9000 wrote:Did Martin Luther King Jr., in his own time, unite or divide America? Divide of course, since he lead black people to peacefully demand their rights. People were marching through the streets while local police forces tried to stop them with water cannon. The movie, "Mississippi Burning" depicts the murder of three civil rights workers by police in 1964. It doesn't show a country united - quite the opposite. In fact, in his own time, MLK polarized the country. How did he do it? By being very insistent about a truth that not everyone wanted to hear: all men are created equal.
The people who wrote the Declaration of Independence also increased the polarization in the country by doing the right thing.
My point is this: doing the right thing doesn't always have the immediate effect of uniting a country, and polarizing the country doesn't mean that what you're doing isn't right.
This is one of the more outrageous posts I have ever seen here, Martin Luther King Jr, UNITED people in the cause for civil rights. America was united in outrage over the way the marchers were treated. King brought people together in the casue for civil rights. No leader is going to unite everyone. Bush was elected to to lead all of America. Martin Luther King's role was to achieve civil rights for a minority. Comparing Bush to MLK is blashpemous. And stupid.
Roxxxanne wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Did Martin Luther King Jr., in his own time, unite or divide America? Divide of course, since he lead black people to peacefully demand their rights. People were marching through the streets while local police forces tried to stop them with water cannon. The movie, "Mississippi Burning" depicts the murder of three civil rights workers by police in 1964. It doesn't show a country united - quite the opposite. In fact, in his own time, MLK polarized the country. How did he do it? By being very insistent about a truth that not everyone wanted to hear: all men are created equal.
The people who wrote the Declaration of Independence also increased the polarization in the country by doing the right thing.
My point is this: doing the right thing doesn't always have the immediate effect of uniting a country, and polarizing the country doesn't mean that what you're doing isn't right.
This is one of the more outrageous posts I have ever seen here, Martin Luther King Jr, UNITED people in the cause for civil rights. America was united in outrage over the way the marchers were treated. King brought people together in the casue for civil rights. No leader is going to unite everyone. Bush was elected to to lead all of America. Martin Luther King's role was to achieve civil rights for a minority. Comparing Bush to MLK is blashpemous. And stupid.
On the contrary. When you see an image of people marching in the streets with King for their rights, and the police shooting them down with water cannon, that doesn't look like unity to me. Within his lifetime, his actions caused more polarization than unity. People who take a stand for the right thing often cause great dissension at first.
It seems to me the opposite is the case with Bush. Everybody couldn't agree more with Bush in 2001 and the unity was probably record breaking and now well, maybe the unity is record breaking again.
Bush's approval rating is again at 39%.
Quote:Poll: Americans nervous about Iran
Bush's approval rating drops to 39 percent
source
For an overall look at how at first Americans were behind Bush but now are not look
here
Brandon9000 wrote:On the contrary. When you see an image of people marching in the streets with King for their rights, and the police shooting them down with water cannon, that doesn't look like unity to me. Within his lifetime, his actions caused more polarization than unity. People who take a stand for the right thing often cause great dissension at first.
So the country was united before King organized these protests?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace