Is George W Bush a complete moron ?

[TheBigDog]

Thanks for asking a more focussed question Bill. I really do not adopt a stance such as that you described (at least, I certainly do not intend to).

InNow?

Yes Bill...

Is the water warm enough?

Yes Bill...

Shall we begin?

In sum, I find those who disagree with the vast majority of the current Presidential Administrations activities, actions, and decisions tend to at least acknowledge some acceptance of the positive accomplishments made by the administration. "Hey, I disagree with A, B, and C, but I must say, I'm really glad they did X," for example.

I have not seen much if any of this myself. I know Buffy made a backhanded compliment about immigration policy, but your characterization of Bush detractors acknowledging common ground with the man is not what I would call commonplace.

However, I concurrently find that those who support the vast majority of the current Presidential Administrations activities tend to refuse to acknowledge areas of potential concern or error, and focus almost purely on attacking those who disagree. It is reminiscent in some ways of the approach taken by many religious cults to keep the "congregation" of a single mind. The tactic leaves enormous distaste in my mouth, and it's frankly confusing to me, so often my responses to these individuals come across terse.

My impression is that you are not paying close attention to the people that you are describing, otherwise you would not be regurgitating this stereotype. There are those people who are adamantly in line with the President about the war, but they might be opposed on many other issues. The bit about conservatives or Republicans being the equivalent of cult members is cute. Nice to keep it objective.

GW Bush, as Governor of Texas, prided himself in working with the loyal opposition. he even used the idea in campaigning for the presidency in declaring his *Conservative with compassion* notion. when he took office, he declared a new tone in Washington, which apparently has not worked.

It appears that you've bought into Bush talking point number one: Everyone else, not the man in charge, is responsible for the problems with which we are confronted.

Jackson's first point is that Bush failed to change Washington. Your response is to stereotype Jackson as a cool-aid drinking Republican.

Ma Richards asked how he won the governorship said "his conviction, when he makes a statement he sticks with it", which on the Federal level only works when historians years from now will judge his efforts.

The only thing that history will show is that too many people in the United States are still too dumb to notice the problems and do something to fix them... That too many people are content to be led astray like sheep to a wolf.

Jackson makes the statement that historians will someday pronounce judgment on Bush's Presidency, but does not hint as to it being good or bad judgment, in fact he is completely neutral in his statement. Your response is an attack on anyone who disagrees with you in your precise prediction of the future. (scientific?)

he as a person IMO has been forced to make many decisions which on the outside seem a little over the limits of what can be accomplished. others, even some i disagree with *amnesty*, *education reform* seem based on the only logical way to solve some problems.

Here Jackson details some areas where he disagrees with the President. Is he lying to throw everyone off, or is he being honest about his stance?

Your response as explained to me...

Now, of course I'm speaking in trends, and not all people fit so neatly into one category or the other. However, if I were to to discuss with someone who has consistently stood up proudly behind the administration, the likelihood is that they would quickly derive some other label as an attempt to discredit me, or label the information I present as fallacious, despite any supporting evidence I might present. Most commonly, those who support the admistration choose to derogatorily label all those who call out obvious concerns with the actions of our president.

Where has this happened? Why are you treating Jackson as though he has already treated you badly?

even other perceived problems, Katrina, Rumsfeld, Gonzales were not problems at all but the movements of the highly organized "loyal opposition" via their media sources and the inside the beltway political structure.

Is it unheard of for the parties to make mountains out of molehills in an attempt to discredit the opposition politically? Doesn't seem like a charged statement here.

i am not sure where wisdom can be applied to what a president must decide and act on and a decision must be based on convictions. the wise thing in most cases, are to do nothing, let some other nation or people act on the problem when ever possible. FDR did this and the problem almost became insurmountable by 75% of the world people and destructive to the entire world.

While grammatically awkward, this is nothing more than a lesson from history that isolationist stances can lead to more trouble than being involved. Is this part of the party line? Your explanation to me...

The post to which I responded, prompting your initial inquiry, struck me as little more than a person regurgitating to others that which they'd been told to say. I arrived at this understanding primarily by having read other posts by the posting member here in these forums and having a fairly robust sense of their stance on many topics.

Convenient to be able to understand a person without reading the post you are responding to, or by framing your response on other posts you have read instead of on the merits of the current post.

as for intelligence, he has had the best and brightest to draw from, with the experience to evaluate, solve and limit countless problems which never made the headlines.

Any response to this? Are there problems that have indeed been solved by the administration that could be used to see them in a more optimistic light? Perhaps asking to detail accomplishments would push the conversation forward.

The funny thing to me, really, is that most supporters who fall into this camp do not tend to support the president with fact and example, but more often attack the character of those who feel we as a nation/planet could do much better than the current administration... and even provide examples as to how. This approach is contrary to the essence of a scientific mind, and IMO is also a poor method of supporting the country and planet as a whole.

I have likewise been accused of spewing Republican talking points. It is a clever way of avoiding debate of the points raised. It is unfortunate that this behavior is not called into check more often.

 

Honestly, it is disturbing how shallowly a conservative opinion is treated here...

 

Lack of credibility, continuted shifting of blame and intentional misdirection, ineffective policy, misleadership, and corruption are at the root of Bush’s problems... and you sugget that we're simply looking at things incorrectly.

No backing of the statement, just accusations.

Infinite; guess you know something i do not, since i am totally unaware of Bush blaming anyone else on any of his political problems. as a people, we do tend to follow our leaders. we also as a people know our leaders are no less flawed than ourselves and capable of error. you really don't want the historian viewpoints of error made before, during or after WWII. the outcome was what it was, with all those very costly (lives & dollars) rarely mentioned.

if they were vital, FDR would be the most hated and Bush's error's like mistakes made at a poker table or of little importance.

 

why is that 28% figure so important to you. my faith in country is as strong today as ever, feeling our system of democracy the best. the fact that 23% of folks approve of Congress or the presidents approval rating tell me only were in a political race environment which will change little for 14-16 months or so. this alone should tell you Bush is acting on convictions, not the wishes of the media. he knows full well, if the Iraq problems end today another issue will take its place. IMO he also knows the results of inaction...

Answers your question from a personal level. Response?

Hence...

...you sugget that we're simply looking at things incorrectly.

<...>

Wake up.

disregarding the reasons, when a decision is made to wipe out terrorism, regardless of a time element, to give the Iraq people a chance at freedom, to rid the Philippines of terrorist, or to help the Africans from the effects of Aids, he has stuck to these and other decisions through the best and worst of times. its a quality, i rarely see and with the choices available in 08, i see no continues of this conviction.

Do you drive your car using this "quality" described above?

 

"Honey, you're about to go off of a cliff. You might want to consider slowing down or perhaps changing direction."

 

"BAH!! I've decided that this is the best route to our improved future, and I'm sticking to it. History will judge my decision and reward my conviction!

Sarcasm? Yes. Respectful debate? ...

Infinite; national policy and driving on a road, for some reason are not good analogy in my opinion. were talking a thousand issues, but in many cases, the altering of policy with in an operation is nothing new. WWII, for example was from no involvement to total involvement, near defeat and after many errors a final victory on both fronts. the decision which Truman made, today is questioned and those people questioning now and those on Dec. 6th, 1945 would rather see the US speaking Japanese or still fighting the War, for some notion that war is never necessary.

 

The Bush Doctrine, primarily states that to harbor, fund or in any way sponsor terrorism will NOT be tolerated by the US government. if this statement is heading for that cliff, then were going over and you best fasten your seat belt.

The statement is not pushing the accelerator pedal. The statement is fine. It's the continually failed execution of it that is the problem. The lack of accountability. The pissing all over the rest of the planet in the process. The economic short-sightedness... The... ad infinitum.

 

So I say again,

 

It appears that you've bought into Bush talking point number one: Everyone else, not the man in charge, is responsible for the problems with which we are confronted. His approval ratings actually do mean something. The perception of the rest of the world is actually relevant here. Lack of credibility, continuted shifting of blame and intentional misdirection, ineffective policy, misleadership, and corruption are at the root of Bush’s problems... and you sugget that we're simply looking at things incorrectly.

Details? No. Repetition? Yes.

 

And the reply...

you will have to explain under what conditions the President is to give accountability to you. they all try in the public arena, but this is for political reasons and rarely acceptable to half the people. Foreign policy in the US is directly linked to the president, the responsibility of that office, with in some cases the requires congressional approval, which he has had....

 

economic short sightedness??? please, the US and for that matter the world economies are at all time highs, despite 9-11, all the other terrorist action, Katrina or whatever minor issue your implying.

 

no doubt the leaders of Iran, No. Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and much of the Radical Islamic Clergy would agree with you that the US President is a nuisance to there objective goals, however most places this is not the thought. frankly elections around the world in recent months have indicated the opposite.

 

"everybody else's error" is the opposite of what he is. he takes responsibility in areas i feel, he had nothing to do with the problem, Katrina for instance.

he gives credit for jobs well done, by the many that have left his administration over the years. speaking of talking points, its my understanding much of what you say is found on *moveon.org* which many in the media and those running for office use....maybe even the terrorist themselves.

Now, here is a man who was accused from the beginning of using talking points, and after pages of responses he replies with a like comment. Will the reaction address any of the content of his post? Will there be discourse? Will there be an exchange based upon the topic?

Look... over there... a terradactyl!

Hmmm...

Logic doesn't seem to work on the indentured minds of blind followers.

Hmmm...

Infinite; i have opposed "no child left behind" or the education reform act itself, i have opposed the "new tone" premise or that the loyal opposition was indeed loyal, i have opposed the spending both by Bush (not vetoing) and Congress over the six years of his administration. More recently I have opposed "Immigration Reform" at least as written and said would be signed.

I am concerned about many of the recent GW remedies which are being presented, even if offered as appeasements and I am not understanding the need to Veto "stem cell research". if I am a blind follower, then i have no idea how he was elected twice.

I'd counter more of your points Jackson, but I'm afraid I'm beginning to suffer from "no supporting evidence" fatigue when reading your posts.

 

 

When one who is blind asks you to shine a light at them, you can shine the brightest light and still get no response.

Counter? When did you counter? When did you debate? All you did was make demands and offer up nothing of substance, then declare your boredom with the ineptness of your counterpart. In a word... weak. Especially considering this earlier dialog in this same thread...

in the world....There Is No CONSENSUS.

Then, if that truly is the case, and if people who think like you are the majority, then...

 

There is no hope.

 

 

 

...and I refuse to believe that.

if you think i am wrong... why not tell it the way you think it is?

We evolve each day... physically as a species as well as internally as a self. While there are opposite ends of any spectrum (two sides to every coin, yin to every yang...), it's still the same spectrum.

 

I believe that there is SOME consensus... not NONE as you suggested.

 

More and more people are respecting and understanding our impacts with each passing moment, and by joining together are beginning to piece together solutions.

 

 

As could be potentially ascertained from my previous post, the one to which you were responding, I think it is hopeful as more people share their ideas and thoughts... I think it's what we make of it.

where do you find consensus?

perhaps with the Germans and French and the US about Iraq?

perhaps the Israelis and Palestine over the Hamas win in the recent election?

maybe the Taiwanese and mainland Chinese?

maybe North Korea and the US?

Iran and the world about their nuclear efforts?

Republicans and Democrats about affirmative action, abortion, school vouchers, education, healthcare, same sex marriage?

Japan and the US about Tuna fishing in our territorial waters?

Mexico and the US about illegal immigration?

my typing finger is tired, or i could give you a thousand more. do you have any examples about consensus?

You know, I've answered most of the questions you've posed, questor, and you just pose more. The questions are loaded and usually have multiple answers. Or, they are phrased in such a way that the answer is implied, and if the person responding says something contrary to the implied point, you fire back with other tangential and not necessarily related questions.

 

Your questions also demonstrate your beliefs, which are fine... I just don't happen to agree with many of them.

 

 

I choose not to spend energy with these loaded questions any more today. Maybe another time...

 

Cheers.

Imagine, being asked to be accountable for your words. Sounds awful.

 

Did Jackson fail to ever respond in detail? No. Did Jackson receive responses that actually dealt with the pertinent content of his posts? From some, yes. From others, no. Did he attack people or stereotype people? No. Were his posts nitpicked for accuracy of noncritical details and when those were found, paraded as evidence of his total lack of credibility instead of dealing with the issues that were being discussed? Yes. By many here. There needs to be more conscious effort to be balanced in how we respond to posts. Responding to what is being said, not what you are choosing to read between the lines will make Hypography a more inviting place for debate instead of a cold shoulder for those who are not speaking the approved lines.

 

But then again...

We all tend to hear what we want to hear... posters and presidents alike.

Peace

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

I appreciate your efforts in putting together that slick little montage combining posts I've made to various people over the past year and a half in this thread. However, there is one quote that you added, and I'd like to repeat it here (repetition sometimes means it's still an issue):

 

The perception of the rest of the world is actually relevant here. Lack of credibility, continuted shifting of blame and intentional misdirection, ineffective policy, misleadership, and corruption are at the root of Bush’s problems... and you sugget that we're simply looking at things incorrectly.

 

You responded above to this by stating:

No backing of the statement, just accusations.

and then again later,

Details? No. Repetition? Yes.

 

;)

Are you really going to ask me to generate an extensive list of all of the failures, lies, misdirections, examples of the continued decline in global sentiment, the short-sighted policy decisions, the ellipsis? Seriously Bill, one could get their PhD spending that much time on a single subject and still not even come close to covering it all. :)

 

There needs to be more conscious effort to be balanced in how we respond to posts.

Why? I speak my mind. I say what I feel. I call out things with which I disagree. I'm not running for office, I'm sharing my thoughts on those who have.

 

 

Btw, your slicing of my overall posts which conveyed a specific tone into single sentences to meet your presentational need was nice. You should be a movie editor. :cup:

[TheBigDog]

I appreciate your efforts in putting together that slick little montage combining posts I've made to various people over the past year and a half in this thread. However, there is one quote that you added, and I'd like to repeat it here (repetition sometimes means it's still an issue):

 

The perception of the rest of the world is actually relevant here. Lack of credibility, continuted shifting of blame and intentional misdirection, ineffective policy, misleadership, and corruption are at the root of Bush’s problems... and you sugget that we're simply looking at things incorrectly.

The perception of the rest of the world, or your perception? Yes, there is some relevance to the opinion of the rest of the world, but the fact remains that the President is elected by the citizens of the United States and serves the interests of the United States. Many of the actions of the President will be controversial for a very long time. One group of folks is spinning his policies as the end of the world with the intent of demonizing him. Repetition of this rhetoric has the effect of swaying public opinion of the President's policies toward the negative (propaganda). Another group is trying to frame the policies in a positive light. with enough repetition this will have the effect of bringing public opinion back toward the President (more propaganda).

 

Since you do not want the President seen in a good light you have to deal with the arguments from the opposing viewpoint. How do you do this? By personally attacking those people and refusing to address the content of their arguments. You recently told me that you expected better from me than resorting from ad homoniem attacks (for saying that you are left wing), yet you have no hesitation to ignore arguments from the other side and then attack the intelligence of the people with opposing views en mass. When questioned about it it seems to mean nothing to you to do such a thing, as any intelligent person would have to agree with you.

 

Were my original questions rhetorical? No. The fact that you did not realize this speaks volumes to me.

 

Lack of credibility, continuted shifting of blame and intentional misdirection, ineffective policy, misleadership, and corruption are at the root of Bush’s problems

All of the things that you list here are to a degree subjective in nature, and dependent upon the observers perspective of the events. (I will be glad to follow your lead in addressing them point by point.) When you hold them up the only way to address them is to argue the roots of the other perspective, which is being done. (If you were to actually support your claims then there could be debate based upon your supporting premises.) So in fact the only way to argue with you is to suggest that you are not looking at things correctly.

 

Why is it that instead of debating the counters presented to you, you just continue to beat this drum? Where is the substance of your argument?

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

Bill, I've updated my original response. I was doing so apparently when you wrote the above.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/5217-george-w-bush-complete-moron-24.html#post179376

 

 

Specific to one of your questions is the piece about your request for me to gather evidence that we've been lied to, misdirected, had ineffective policy decisions, and significant decline in global perceptions.

 

 

What you consider my attack on intelligent people with opposing views, I consider my attempt to sway opinion toward that which is best for us as a planet. Subjective indeed, but I am thinking globally.

[TheBigDog]

Btw, your slicing of my overall posts which conveyed a specific tone into single sentences to meet your presentational need was nice. You should be a movie editor. :)

I made a specific effort *not* to do this. I did break up your conversation with me to address it point-by-point, but in your exchanges with Jackson I used your whole posts, and his whole posts (where they were answering you). If you go back and read the originals you will see that you, in almost every case, sliced out single sentences to frame the context for your replies rather than taking whole posts where you would have to deal with the substance of your counterpart's arguments. I would say that mine represent the "director's cut".

 

This is more fun than work. It almost feels like old times (if you can call last year old times ;) ).

 

Bill

[freeztar]

I'm glad you have rejoined the discussion TBD!! ;)

 

Jackson needed some help as he's a bit overwhelmed by us "lefties".

 

I do not think a strong argument can be made by attacking iNow.

 

Of course, I welcome any reasonable debate on this subject, and you have proven, in my eyes, to be a worthy debater. :)

[jackson33]

I'm glad you have rejoined the discussion TBD!! :)

 

Jackson needed some help as he's a bit overwhelmed by us "lefties".

 

I do not think a strong argument can be made by attacking iNow.

 

Of course, I welcome any reasonable debate on this subject, and you have proven, in my eyes, to be a worthy debater. :)

 

my last post, directed at IN, TFS and you, were jointly met with a desire to drop the issue. a response to any of those following replies would be of interest to no one, nor do i respond to purely conclude an issue. what would seem being overwhelmed, was then a loss of purpose.

 

IMO; and often part of discussion, is the tearing down of honorable characters in the US, historic or current for the purpose of suiting subjects of a personal view, when that person has achieved the ultimate in the American Society. to illustrate this, i would argue to the hilt, what the War on Poverty, or the policies of Carter have done to make many visible problems today, what they are. However i will never lose respect for the office they held or their other achievements, which they did have or in any way say their motives were other than honorable.

 

Dog; what effort, must have taken hours to put that together. Limbaugh often says, "what is said means little, but who says it is does". I'll leave it there, but i feel sure you know many folks take out of contents what is desirable to debate an issue. I did notice many times this style debate. one of which was the 23% approval rating of Congress, which has dropped to 13%, which even the poler's are wondering if possible. nothing has ever been rated that low...

[freeztar]

my last post, directed at IN, TFS and you, were jointly met with a desire to drop the issue. a response to any of those following replies would be of interest to no one, nor do i respond to purely conclude an issue. what would seem being overwhelmed, was then a loss of purpose.

 

The "desire to drop the issue" stemmed directly from your inability to argue the objections that were made clear. I do not want to drop the issue altogether, but I feel that we are at polar opposites when it comes to "the president meeting his obligations", so I did not feel the discussion was moving one way or the other (ie stagnant).

 

I welcome rebuttal as it is the impetus of my further understanding, but ignorance does not fit the bill.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Limbaugh often says, "what is said means little, but who says it is does".

 

Style over substance. That's Rush allright. :)

 

One group of folks is spinning his policies as the end of the world with the intent of demonizing him. Repetition of this rhetoric has the effect of swaying public opinion of the President's policies toward the negative (propaganda). Another group is trying to frame the policies in a positive light.

 

The group you disagree with is "spinning" as "the end of the world" while the group you agree with is "framing" in a "positive light."

 

I'd say you were "framing in a positive light." Or perhaps "spinning as a happiness and love and fighting for freedom."

 

Or could it be that you and jackson are attracted to the Daddy State, while INow and I would rather have the Mommy State.

 

Read about half way down and see which set of "assumptions" appears so blindingly self evident as to defy argument.

 

As I'm sure all of you know - if you start with different assumptions, you wind up with different answers. We're not even having the same conversation here.

 

Not that it's a worthless conversation to have - but right now, we're arguing at cross purposes. Of course, if you're immune to facts, it doesn't really matter - which is where the conversation with Jackson broke down.

 

Witness my three strikes. Has George W. Bush refused to play by the rules? Yes, to my mind - and facts were cited in support of this position - but they weren't countered - just dismissed. I say - Yes, GW broke the law - and HERE is where, and Jackson says effectively - "No he didn't." That's not much of an argument. (Ditto for "Made America safer.")

 

If he had said "The rules may be this - but they SHOULD be this," that would have been something. And at least constructive.

 

Now - why SHOULD GW Bush be able to ignore laws as he sees fit (read torture ban) and why SHOULD GW Bush be able to invade countries and create foreign policy bugabears that will bother us for decades.

 

TFS

[jackson33]

The "desire to drop the issue" stemmed directly from your inability to argue the objections that were made clear. I do not want to drop the issue altogether, but I feel that we are at polar opposites when it comes to "the president meeting his obligations", so I did not feel the discussion was moving one way or the other (ie stagnant).

 

I welcome rebuttal as it is the impetus of my further understanding, but ignorance does not fit the bill.

 

you say "polar opposites" then mention my ignorance on the issue. if opposite then i would agree to disagree and move on. if ignorance, always possible, i would ask what obligations laid out in the duties of a president under the US Constitutions what obligations are or were not met. the one most referred to has been the duties of the CIC, or the protection of the US people from a perceived enemy. he has a nearly five year record of keeping an attack on the homeland at bay, used only a peacetime procedure to do this (advise and consent of Congress) and advised the Nation each January. are you suggesting another issue???

[jackson33]

Yes, Rush shows signs of arrogance from time to time, but in reality which is the world i have to live in, what i say does not carry the authority of a Rush and in this case the Dog....

 

not answering for Dog, if your implying I prefer a masculine approach to the problems in the world, my answer would be yes. when Ms. Rice speaks to the leaders of the world, i want those leaders to know what she says is backed up by her boss and to the limits of his authority. so there is no mis-understanding the same would be, if Rice the president and Bush were the Secretary of State. conviction and authority are not subject to gender, or performance of duties....

[freeztar]

you say "polar opposites" then mention my ignorance on the issue. if opposite then i would agree to disagree and move on. if ignorance, always possible, i would ask what obligations laid out in the duties of a president under the US Constitutions what obligations are or were not met. the one most referred to has been the duties of the CIC, or the protection of the US people from a perceived enemy. he has a nearly five year record of keeping an attack on the homeland at bay, used only a peacetime procedure to do this (advise and consent of Congress) and advised the Nation each January. are you suggesting another issue???

 

Let me clarify what I was trying to say. My last post was not well prepared and I apologize for that.

 

On the subject of Presidential duties being met, I have argued several points that show he is not meeting the obligations (which you) presented. Let us return to that argument once again (sigh).

You stated that you did not wish to talk about GW. That is fine and I understand your objection to the science of the atmosphere, but the point I was trying to make does not depend on acceptance of GW.

The Bush administration had denied the idea of GW for years. Now they agree that "climate change" is occurring and is an issue that needs to be addressed. Look at his push for nuclear energy, he is now trying to do something (which I applaud). The point I was making is that out of stubborness (I guess), he refused the good advice of scientists, here in this country, that climate change (GW) was occurring. Once you look into the issue of his administration manipulating scientists OF HIS ADMINISTRATION, then the water gets even murkier. Here are some links to the points I have raised:

Bush pressure seen on climate experts - Environment - MSNBC.com

Rewriting The Science, Scientist Says Politicians Edit Global Warming Research - CBS News

House Panel Investigates Bush's Climate Science Manipulations

Agency Affirms Human Influence on Climate - New York Times

 

Who is to be held accountable for this?

[Tormod]

1-The war on terror, was and is being fought in Afghanistan. the war in Iraq was to enforce UN mandates which Saddam had ignored for many years. that war won, Saddam toppled and the aftermath, forming a viable government in progress. as for the war on terror going to Iraq, we don't have time for that..

 

Hm, that's a copout IMHO. The War on terror did perhaps start in Afghanistan, but it continued in Iraq. Bush's "Axis of evil" did not even include Afghanistan, but rather North Korea, Iran, and Iraq.

 

Some sources:

Axis of evil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War on Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

War on Terrorism - Theaters of operation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

If we don't have time for the war in Iraq, then what are we discussing here? It certainly is part of why people question the "moronity" of W Bush. :)

[freeztar]

It certainly is part of why people question the "moronity" of W Bush. :)

 

Actually it is "Dubyah" Bush, and it has to be pronounced with a Texan accent. :)

[TheFaithfulStone]

not answering for Dog, if your implying I prefer a masculine approach to the problems in the world, my answer would be yes. when Ms. Rice speaks to the leaders of the world, i want those leaders to know what she says is backed up by her boss and to the limits of his authority. so there is no mis-understanding the same would be, if Rice the president and Bush were the Secretary of State. conviction and authority are not subject to gender, or performance of duties....

 

I don't have a problem with wanting the US to back up it's statements - with force of arms if necessary. I wanted you to read the linked article and tell me which set of assumption you thought seemed self evident.

 

Bush claims that certain laws simply do not apply to the President. (Torture ban.) To me - this is a strike against "playing by the rules" which you outlined as a requirement for the job.

 

Why is is that Bush should be allowed to NOT play by this rule?

 

All other issues aside for now - let's go one at a time.

 

TFS

[jackson33]

Freeztar; President Bush, represents a party as well as the total people of the US. his duty is to the people while president and his ideology is based on his parties platform which got him elected.

 

remembering your mention of GW, i presumed at the time your motive for the distaste in his actions, toward that issue rather than the issue of moronic behavior. i also recall saying i would argue any issue of GW any time, not not on this thread. the reason was *off topic* which would take infinite 10 seconds to reprimand me.

 

i am well versed on GW and enjoy decent debate on the subject. check my previous post and bring one back up if you like or start a new one, i will make a special effort to contribute. or any thread which i may not be seeing.

 

as for this being the responsibility of a president to act on Kyoto or the UN review of the subject, they are IMO both directed at punishments toward the US, rather than substance change in global attitudes. now his actions to appease the environmentalist are resulting in major inflationary pressures in the US and for that matter the world. i feel his motives are dependence, going along with party lines, not environmental, but ethanol mandates are just not going to work, certainly for the cost which all the people on the planet are paying for in higher cost of corn products and all they are connected to. were talking a three fold increase in a staple corn, which per bushel as risen from 2 to 6.00 per bushel in less than a year, not taking in account the shortage of others (wheat, oats, soybean etc) which farmers are dropping for the better paying corn.

[jackson33]

I don't have a problem with wanting the US to back up it's statements - with force of arms if necessary. I wanted you to read the linked article and tell me which set of assumption you thought seemed self evident.

 

Bush claims that certain laws simply do not apply to the President. (Torture ban.) To me - this is a strike against "playing by the rules" which you outlined as a requirement for the job.

 

Why is is that Bush should be allowed to NOT play by this rule?

 

All other issues aside for now - let's go one at a time.

 

TFS

 

on the issue of torture, i have to go with personal opinion. this being there would seem to be no need to torture, or that IF DONE, the results would be faulty. certainly those that work in this area or that of intelligence, know more than me and i assume more than the President. if he was advised to authorize or gave an executive order to use any means, then those that advised him or took the actions to explain their actions.

 

factually, or morally, i really have no sympathy for the enemy. torture to them would seem to be removing the heads from their captive, to my knowledge not practiced by the US or there coalition.

 

there were no rules, Geneva Convention or any international law, governing the expected actions taken in combat for non-affiliated, unmarked civilian terrorist. playing by the rules was and to some degree is still subjective. he played by the rules of the day, changed the rules through time to meet public expectation and he and the courts have all but given additional rights to the enemy well over the set rules of war.