Ahhh.. the Doofus-in-Chief gives me more fodder... Responding to Tom Daschle's speech pitching his economic recovery plan Bush broke his personal record with a whopping double verbal gaffe: "And I challenge their economics when they say raising taxes will help the country recover. Not over my dead body will they raise your taxes." First, the Texas Dauphin lied: Daschle has NOT called for raising taxes. Second, the term is "Over my dead body" without the "Not" -- giving us yet another choice quote to add to the already burgeoning collection of Bush-isms.
georgey's a guy we all love to hate... Yes, George W. Bush is one sucky president. Lets hope Daschle runs in another three years. HE isn't the one leading the country through war, I can just picture him nodding and saying 'mm hmm' to all of his advisors when they tell him what to do. ARR!!
Smile... Actually, I thought his comments didn't sound very presidential, and were in poor taste in light of recent events. The longer I watch this presidency, the more I expect Allen Funt to walk in at any moment. Peace.
D'oh! He was trying to defuse tensions yesterday, saying: "We are working hard to convince both the Indians and the Pakis that there's a way to deal with their problems without going to war." Ever since he could not name the President of Pakistan, I have wondered if actually knows ANYTHING about the place. Pakistanis are now protesting his casual use of "Pakis", which is widely regarded as an offensive epithet. Ahhhh.. the good ol' boy keeps the string alive!
Goofyfish writes, quoting W "... "And I challenge their economics when they say raising taxes will help the country recover. Not over my dead body will they raise your taxes." And opines: First, the Texas Dauphin lied: Daschle has NOT called for raising taxes. Second, the term is "Over my dead body" without the "Not" -- giving us yet another choice quote to add to the already burgeoning collection of Bush-isms. The W quote was preceded by an assertion that eliminating the out-year tax cuts already approved by Congress is, in effect, a raise in taxes. In context, then, it is W's view that Daschle HAS called for a tax raise, in that he has called for repeal of the future, approved cut in taxes. As to the alleged double negative, try this: "Not, over my dead body, will they raise your taxes." Stilted, but grammatically correct."
Well, the war in Afghanistan thus far successful, the economy on the rebound, I think critics are under a lot of pressure to point out the mans personal flaws. If he is an idiot, yet can successfully manage American affairs, then so be it. He leans a bit too far to the right for my tastes, but I think he has done well. I'm still watching the Enron scandal and the D.C. (Dick's) involvement with the energy peddlers. If a dark cloud is to be cast over the Bush presidency, that will be its seed. I suspect that there was inappropriate manipulation and collusion between the two. All we need now are the documents which tell the tale. I also think that the American Public will become weary of the closed-door attitude of the administration. It might expedite the administration's policies to sidestep public scrutiny, but can also become a privilege of dangerous abuse. I have my concerns, but have yet to feel the consequence of any errors made by Bush or his administration. The extreme rise in energy cost might be their doing; however, I am still waiting for the facts of that, hmm, scandal.
yes, you're right - whitehouse.com, definetely good.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: georgey's a guy we all love to hate... If it wasn't for his advisors you'd have ~10$ monthly sallary, people would speak half spanish half texasian(sp) and chinese would build military bases in NY and russians would have bought back Alaska.
Almost but not quite Bowser, While I agree that the state of things might compel critics to look back toward Bush's personal flaws, what might we then say of the Clinton Inquisition? Not to take issue with the whole of your post, but with this part, I'm curious as to your opinion of Bush's manufacturing of the bad economy. Certes, it was unstable, and this is bad during election season, but it's not just a fiction that I relate when I remind everybody that the economists were screaming that there was no recession despite what the president-elect (-thief?) might have said. Go look up Time magazine, for instance; actually, someday I'll pull that one out myself, but I admit I'm not that devoted to the point at present. Around January 7, 2001, you'll find an issue with the cover story, "Surviving the Recession". This is the actual start of the recession, for any intents and purposes. A recession has a technical definition that doesn't mean much, but we understand the psychology of financial markets. Recessions seem to make or break elections when they really shouldn't. So where I run into trouble is the idea that the economy is on the rebound. I'm not sure it ever should have been that far off-track. I would, in fact, accuse the President of deliberately sabotaging the economy with his rhetoric, creating a false-alarm, and thus costing many people their jobs, savings, or retirements, in order to secure power for the GOP. It used to be that when a president needed information, he asked experts. Every day of the Economic Bush War seems to be a case of the executive telling the experts what reality was. Okay, and of the Afghan success ... sure. But here I'm wondering. Operation Anaconda has been called a success, but there are still some who insist we won the Vietnam War. It seems that Operation Anaconda is successful in the way Operation Desert Storm was successful; that is, we'll just forget the glaring details. The remaining Al-Qaeda are "probably non-Afghan" members, yet some remain. What was the expressed mission of Anaconda? Aside from killing some and scattering others, what has been accomplished? I think of Bush: "We wil not falter, we will not fail." I think of Rumsfeld: "We may not ever get bin Laden" and "You're taking me out of context". And now we see the successful missions closing without fulfilling the whole of their goal? What part of the Afghani operation is a success? Is it the sparkling new democracy? The sterling economy? (Yes, I understand these successes take a while; I'm not sure those proclaiming the American success in Afghanistan do.) In the figurative sense, none of it matters if we don't get bin Laden. I'm quite serious when I worry that it's a "race against God", as such. So when bin Laden dies of liver or kidney failure, or cancer or a heart attack, or simply slips away into the night--our experts don't think he's healthy, y'know--it will have the effect of telling how many fence-sitting would-be extremists that God delivered bin Laden to Paradise and spared him the clutches of the Great Satan. And when that happens, and when the next round is afoot, does that mean we were truly successful? If the critics are returning to their original complaints about Bush, it might be because none of those issues were ever addressed or resolved, the issues seem to have attained the endorsement from the same bunch that normally disapproves of such, and because those complaints are reflected in the complications of the Afghani Bush War that the people have failed to address. On the one hand, the people are the people and that's that. If they choose to approve of this lying, hypocritical, self-righteous, incoherent idiot, then so be it. That is reality. It doesn't make it right. Think of it in terms of Dan Quayle. After he erroneously corrected a student, pundits could be found pointing out archaic spellings of potatoe that Quayle may have been influenced by. Yes, and Lovecraft writes the word antient (ancient) but it doesn't make antient a word in the present, regardless of what authority Lovecraft holds in his field. Take the analogous leap. Even though the successes of the Bush Wars are accepted, they are not by the relevant standards; e.g. we are faltering. And this isn't so much of a problem, except for the megalomaniac way in which Bush bandied around words when speaking while angry. This is a holy war for Americans, and that's flat absurd. Faltering is a normal part of the process, but we have declared that we shall not, and so the world wonders. Perhaps it breathes a sigh of relief, though, since we chose to falter instead of blindly destroying everything. The most frightening aspect of that, however, is that this relief comes because of a blunder--the inability to quickly accomplish our declared goals--and not deliberate wisdom--e.g. understanding that, despite being the good guys, we can't kick the world around like this. So, on the one hand, if the critics are picking on personal aspects of the man, it's because they already were, long before he was "elected" ( Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ). To the other, if they're picking on the personal aspects of the man, it's because character was made an issue by his own faction of supporters. And, to yet another, if they're picking on the personal aspects of the man, it may be because those personal failures are reflecting in his performance of his duties. At this point, Bush would do the world the greatest service by simply trouncing all international and constitutional restraints, visiting a scourge of death and ambition upon the world, and then resigning from office and surrendering to the World Court, offering the defense, "Well, I did it. At least there's that." It has the same effect. Dragging it out and calling it right when it's not is a worse crime than to simply circumvent the law and be done with it. Like I said, Bowser, there's not much of that post that I argue with. But this, it was a springboard. Afghanistan is only a success if we lower our standards. Of course, that's just my opinion, or something like that. I suppose the key lies where you note that you have yet to feel the consequences of the administration. We might just measure by a different stick. In fact, I'm sure of it. Be that as it may, though, I must disagree with the notion that critics focus on Bush's personal aspects for lack of legitimate ammunition. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Theres not much more i can add to that except come and post on the other anti-war threads (philosphy of terrorism, Will the US cause WWIII, Hiroshima Was a Terrorist Act, We Aren't Winning The Terror War and why we need woman in power all over the world their may be more i haven't found yet) And Yes Hamster if you read this post i AM recuiting again because i think this is a VERY important issue plus you are welcome to recuit to the more opinions the better
<b>Teasa</b>, I think the war <b>thus far</b> has gone well, but it is too soon to call it an overall win. We will keep watching though. We might find ourselves covertly operating in Pakistan soon, and I think Iraq is a gonner. As for Bush, he's flying high. His critics wont touch the war on terrorism because that would appear anti-American and would receive a cold response. What can they say about a recession which is in recovery? I hear what you are saying, but it sounds like a vein attempt to cast Bush into the role of Darth Vader, and to make him responsible for a business cycle which is as old as capitalism itself. As for the recession, I read that all but one of the indicators were in place. Do pass us a link. I would be interested to read the article you mentioned. Nonetheless, we were due for a recession. To be sure, we were on one of the longest runs of prosperity in history. The bubble had to burst. Where I was working, we watched our gross monthly sales slowly slide from 2 million plus to less than 1 million, and that was before 9-11. After 9-11, our GS was around 500,000. Maybe a retraction would be a better word for what has taken place. I think the experts are still uncertain what they should call it. Anyway, I don't see much here which I want to argue. I suppose that, like you, I have my concerns.
According to this Gallup poll, if you hate Bush at this point you are the lunatic fringe. It really seems to burn a lot of people's ass around here that Bush is not only more popular after the election, but a lot more popular. It's real hard to gain any political traction against that kind of phenomena. But to put it in perspective, if I remember correctly, he has a mere 7 points on former President Clinton during "Impeachment Week USA" in 1998. Peace.
quote.. .According to this Gallup poll, if you hate Bush at this point you are the lunatic fringe. It really seems to burn a lot of people's ass around here that Bush is not only more popular after the election, but a lot more popular. It's real hard to gain any political traction against that kind of phenomena. ------------------------------------------------------------ His is popular but the reason why can be debated all day. Hitler was once the "Time man of the Year" but as history proves for all of the wrong reasons and I feel it is fitting with Bush as well. History has been consistant on Countries that have been eager to go to war. Once upon a time The USA could suppress things but in todays world it is becoming harder. Smile oh I am a Equal Opportunity President Basher as I am for the people and not for a sysytem based on backers getting favours. The links to Bush on Enron are deserving of a thread. Our so called tax cut was paid to the CEO of our utility companies which again has ties to Bush. I just get pissed at presidents that use office to make money at my expense.
