1
   

Is the Bush administration "conservative"?

 
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 08:30 am
tsk tsk kids...where's the love?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 08:39 am
McGentrix wrote:
Much better in the lightening up.

Quote:
Most of us do not consider some of the politicians currently in power (no names mentioned at this point) to be intelligent -- or even close to intelligent.


I just can't see this.



I know. It is one of your blind spots.



Quote:
Even though I disagree that Hillary is human...


Brilliant! When you say things like that, you send the exact message I want you to send. Thanks!


Quote:
You are confusing intelligence with wisdom...


No, I don't think so. I think you are grasping for straws in this little tete-a-tete we are having.

Quote:
...(which any D&D player will tell you is a bad thing) and that makes your arguement invalid.


You are over-reaching here, McG. My argument is not invalid. The thing you substituted for my argument may be invalid -- but remember what I said about changing what people say and then arguing against the change.

Very bad habit. Very, very tough to break. Work on it, ole friend.

Quote:
To say that the administration is not intelligent, is like saying the Earth is flat. Like minded people will agree with you, but the facts say differently.


I didn't say the administration is not intelligent. I said "Most of us do not consider some of the politicians currently in power (no names mentioned at this point) to be intelligent -- or even close to intelligent."

This is another example of changing what people say and then arguing against your change.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 08:54 am
Ok...your right. Bad habit...

You said "Most of us do not consider some of the politicians currently in power (no names mentioned at this point) to be intelligent -- or even close to intelligent."

By not naming anyone specific, I have to assume that you mean everyone because you have not ruled anyone out. By saying that you do not consider them intelligent you are implying that they are ignorant.

I am interested in what you consider intelligence to mean. Was Bill displaying intelligence while he had his dick in Monica's mouth? How about when he came on TV and stated "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."? How about when he wanted to know the definition of "is"?

Was Hillary displaying her intelligence when she failed to put together a national healthcare plan?

If the current politicians in power are so ignorant, I would ask the question "Then how did they attain the offices they hold?"

Also, I think you mis-speak yourself when you say "Most of us.." Speak for yourself, let others speak for themselves.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 10:47 am
McGentrix

You quoted me saying:
Quote:
Most of us do not consider some of the politicians currently in power (no names mentioned at this point) to be intelligent -- or even close to intelligent.


You then said:
Quote:
By not naming anyone specific, I have to assume that you mean everyone because you have not ruled anyone out.


You really are getting all twisted up here, McG.

How on Earth can anyone with even a modicum of intelligence translate "SOME OF THE POLITICIANS..." to mean EVERYONE?

Try to think before you write and try to think a second time before you post.


Quote:
By saying that you do not consider them intelligent you are implying that they are ignorant.


Most of my comments were aimed at George Bush --and I normally do not imply that he is ignorant. I state flat-out that he is the most ignorant human being ever to hold the office he holds. He has, in my estimation, the intellectual acuity of an asparagus stalk.


Quote:
I am interested in what you consider intelligence to mean. Was Bill displaying intelligence while he had his dick in Monica's mouth?


Nope, that was a display of being horny. BTW, when I was Bill Clinton's age, I worked as a bartender in a couple of go-go bars. I use to love sticking my dick into as many of them as possible -- mouth, or whatever. You ought to try it some time. You might get a different perspective on Bill's situtation.

Quote:
How about when he came on TV and stated "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."? How about when he wanted to know the definition of "is"?


Nope, neither of those were displays of intelligence. (I'm beginning to understand why you are so far off base on this!!!!)


Quote:
Was Hillary displaying her intelligence when she failed to put together a national healthcare plan?


No, not that either! Jeez. But at least she could pronounce national healthcare plan, something Dubya probably couldn't do without a bit of coaching.

Quote:
If the current politicians in power are so ignorant, I would ask the question "Then how did they attain the offices they hold?"


I think it had something to do with a conservative appointed Supreme Court.


Quote:
Also, I think you mis-speak yourself when you say "Most of us.." Speak for yourself, let others speak for themselves.


You're really not very good at this, McG. I doubt you meant "mis-speak yourself." You probably meant to say I was being presumptuous.

But actaully, I am not, because in my original post on this I wrote:

Quote:
I suspect most of the people who like Bill and Hillary (me being one) don't consider them saints in any sense of that word. Most of us probably don't even consider them completely trustworthy or truthful -- they are politicians after all.

But we do consider them intelligent.

Most of us do not consider some of the politicians currently in power (no names mentioned at this point) to be intelligent -- or even close to intelligent.


So you see, I qualified the generalities I was making. I suspect you actually knew that -- but then that old bad habit reared its ugly head -- and you tried to make me be saying something I actually didn't.

Hey, don't worry. You'll get something right soon.

I'm sure you will.

Or at least, I think you will.

If you keep trying.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 10:59 am
Frank - go pick on somebody your own size. McG's comebacks are too small. Besides, they're repetitious. And always, always have somebody else's words.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 11:51 am
frank, are you done with your generalizations? I want to be clear as apparently I'm not getting through.

What do you base your opinions of Bush's intelligence on?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 12:06 pm
Well, I wasn't asked, but hope you don't mind...

When I look at George Bush Jr., I see a man who never speaks on issues past making superficial 'sound-byte' quality remarks. He is either ignorant of, or unfamiliar with the intricacies of his own policies, because he never explains them. And he is never in situations where he has to answer unscripted, or unprotected by a phalanx to those paid to think for him. This is not a simple strategy to avoid unrehearsed "misspeakings", but I believe it to be an acknowledgement by his betters that the boy simply could not handle being asked tough questions. All the gaffes and fumbling of words would not be excused in a local-level government administrator - it would make him appear incompetent and unprofessional. But we are somehow expected to not take Bush's misuse of his native language as an indication of his mental processes?

On what do we base our judgements about Bush's intelligence? Why, on the same things we used to come to consensus that Clinton was a brilliant man. He thrived at parrying extemporaneous challenges to his knowledge - he was a notorious information and policy wonk. And it showed when he talked. A better question might be - how could anyone not see how inept and clueless Bush is?
0 Replies
 
maxsdadeo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 12:13 pm
Quote:
And he is never in situations where he has to answer unscripted, or unprotected by a phalanx to those paid to think for him


Name one politician who holds a federal office that differs from this.


Just one.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 12:36 pm
oh my.....!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 12:37 pm
He must have some really good handlers then. Especially since we will most likely have to listen to many of you guys bitch and moan about Bush until 2008.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 12:43 pm
um I kinda wonder if George W would hire George W to work for him?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 12:44 pm
maxsdadeo wrote:
Quote:
And he is never in situations where he has to answer unscripted, or unprotected by a phalanx to those paid to think for him


Name one politician who holds a federal office that differs from this.


Just one.


John McCain.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 12:44 pm
McG

I don't think I can improve on Snood's response -- so use that as my answer.


Quote:
He must have some really good handlers then. Especially since we will most likely have to listen to many of you guys bitch and moan about Bush until 2008.


Yeah, people said that about his father, too.

And Limbaugh use to talk about how many days until freedom from Clinton -- but had to start counting all over after he was re-elected.

We'll see. You may be right.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 12:53 pm
Agree with Snood. Germane to this is Thomas Friedman's column in the NYTimes today which discusses the degree to which Bush is botching the Iraq situation and asks why. I'll go get a link on that...
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 12:57 pm
Quote:
If I were President Bush, though, and my political life depended on Iraq being a success, I would already be worrying. I would have double the number of U.S. troops there and be throwing so much food and investment into Iraq that people there would think they've won the jackpot. Why the president is not doing that beats me, and it could end up beating him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/18/opinion/18FRIE.html
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 01:07 pm
On second thought, a little breeze tells me that we'll be in Iran before and during the campaign. That's why Iraq may not "end up beating him..."
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 02:12 pm
Maybe not, tart. If we don't have enough troops in Iraq to keep the "peace," and the local offices here say they aren't getting volunteers for the service, who will we send? I know they're withdrawing troops from Korea - but still. And I think we would meet more opposition as we went along. After all, instead of gaining allies (Rumsfeld had said that after we won the war in Iraq everybody would be jumping on the bandwagon) we're losing them. So there we'd be, in what looks like a no-win situation in Iraq, moving on to Iran, with everybody wondering where else we'd go. And it's interesing how many world newspapers are talking about this being a Bush election push.

They have hired very good handlers for Bush. Top advertising people. Charlotte Beers came out of top echelon on Madison Avenue (that's New York for the ad industry), created a dud campaign, left. Victoria Clark came out of top advertising - she's gone. All the financial people are gone - every administration has changes, but it's rare that all top people in a field leave so soon. Bush is actually appearing less often - and when was his last press conference? They don't dare risk it with the way Iraq is going - and with a lot of the press feeling freer to ask questions now.

Bush's intelligence was never in doubt. They tried several different images to make it work - the dude on the ranch stuff, the everybody has a nickname pally stuff, the I'm one of you, folks stuff. Geez, not even his daughters showed up on Fathers' Day. He's got no stuff. What he has is a name the Reagan people thought they could sell, and they did.

By the way, the three judge DC Circuit Court that just gave Ashcroft the right to curtail basic freedoms? Same two judges who went to lunch with Kenneth Starr and said it was okay about the Linda Tripp illegal tapings, and all that.

Goes way beyond conservative, doesn't it?
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 02:27 pm
I haven't seen anyone defend or explain a "conservative" vote in our poll here! I fear many drop in, vote without reading the definitions!

Mamaj -- Did you read the Friedman column? I get a strong sense that Iran will be targeted and it won't matter a damn if we pull our "weary military" out of Iraq early.

The dissent in the Appeals court (I think that's the one you mean?) was very strong, angry even...

Very interesting little discussion of Bush's use of the phrase "revisionist history" with the agreement that there has never been anyone since the term was invented back at the end of WWI who has been as "revisionist" as Bush himself!
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 02:36 pm
Yep - DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Looks like this may be taken further up. And Firedman's changed his tone a bit, too. He used to be more sympathetic, now he's getting realistic. What I'm saying is that going into Iran might not wash as well. Iraq has not gone as planned, and Afghanistan is a shambles. Although the Bush babies have never paid attention to or cared about the people, the people (who vote) may not be as sold on Iran.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2003 02:48 pm
I used to agree with Friedman once in about twenty columns and dislike him intensely the rest of the time. I think I now agree with about half his columns. Guess he's taken off his cheerleading outfit and put on some adult clothing?
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 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 02:51:59