It is funny to me that I have been reading posts on this board for almost a year. I never bothered to register until a few days ago when I thought the RESUME which someone e-mailed me would make for a good discussion, or debate. So I posted it, and there was no reaction for a while. Then today, it has become a free for all. What I have noticed is that AAA is right in his statement about politics of divisiveness. But it seems to me he has it a bit backwards. To me, the divisiveness certainly seems to be coming from the right more so than the left. AAA has used the word "lie" or "lying" several times to make his point. Max401 uses sarcasm, and the other guys seem to use reason and facts. The Prescott Bush ties to Hitler and Nazi Germany; this comes as a surprise to me that it appears to be some kind of new revelation. This information has been around essentially forever in terms of the two Presidents Bush. Nothing new here. But now I read if people had known they would not have voted for GW Bush? How uninformed can these people have been? Someone, said something about the Israeli-Palestinian situation having deteriorated under this President Bush's watch. While I am no great fan of this President, I can't see how any blame could be put on Bush for this. I think RS said the same thing. This Bush seems to care about Israel and the Palestinian cause simultaneously. A hard task. His father, the first President Bush was no friend of Israel, nor did he care about the Palestinians. So in this respect, I give the younger Bush credit for stepping up efforts, futile as they may be. The situation is just very bad there now, and ultimately needs to be resolved by the parties involved. There is only just so much America can do to affect the policies of foreign nations. And yes, Ashcroft is, to me, the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time. Being a practicing religious person does not make one a spiritual person. And his policies that seem to disregard our constitution, while somewhat understandable in a time of war, seem scary anyway. And are we really in a state of war? President Bush called the Iraqi conquest a "battle" not a "war". James Baker made his infamous "Fuck the Jews" comment to Bush Senior, and not only did Bush keep him around, but he was the pointman for Bush Junior's campaign in 2000. So while I give Jr. the benefit of the doubt as to his own morals, it frightens me that he may be too much under the influence of the elder Bush. Imagine if you will the reaction of the President on "The West Wing" if his chief of staff said "Fuck the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway". Out the door! Talk about political incorrectness. And Rumsfeld? Talk about recycled. So really, is Bush Senior the guy pulling the strings? Or is Bush The Younger really in charge? Yes, he is a likeable guy. And has a certain charisma. (looked pretty hot in his flight suit to me). Nothing like Clinton, but who ever did? I guess Kennedy, but I am too young to really know first hand. Not Nixon. Not Ford. Not Carter. Not Reagan. So yes, people like Dubya. But as has been said, being likeable and being competent have no relationship to each other. But we can hope. So even though I posted that put-down resume of Bush Jr., I pray for him and for America. God Bless President Bush, and God Bless America. And please God, if you are listening to me, find us a real opponent for Bush in the 2004 election. Either we will get a better President, or the competition will make Bush himself a better man. Gore the Bore lost the election more than Bush won. Gave it away really. Didn't carry his own state, and shut out Clinton from his campaign. And while Clinton had his very large share of detractors, none of them were going to vote for Gore anyway. Had Gore let Clinton into the campaign, he most likely would have won easily. As much as people hated Clinton, others loved the man equally. He did have a very successful two terms in office excluding the Lewinski fiasco. Which in no way damaged the country. Only damaged Clinton himself, and certainly his own private life and marriage. Certainly there are better potential Democratic candidates than Gore. (And even Gore was a bright and capable guy. Just dull). Find a better candidate to run against Bush, and that will benefit everyone no matter who wins. Michelle
Michelle, You raise an interesting point. Should the Democrat candidate for president avail himself of Bill Clinton's services? No question that Clinton is still popular with the activist base of the party. He also has high negatives, and the republicans would no doubt be quite happy to remind everyone of the scandals that followed him out of the White House along with the china. My guess is the candidate will be either Kerry or Lieberman and neither of them will want much association with a man they privately consider detestable.
I think those are fair comments. Frankly, I am not so worried about what this administration will do but I would shudder to have Hillary Clinton exercising those powers.
AAA, good to know we are in agreement on at least some issues. I agree Michelle makes good points. I especially liked her thought that a better Democratic candidate would benefit us as a country whoever wins. And I agree with you that Clinton can be an asset as a campaigner for a Dem candidate, and I also agree there are cases (like you mentioned) where the potential candidate would find personal feelings towards the man to interfere with letting him be involved. I am not that familiar with Kerry's feelings. (or his politics for that matter). I do know how Lieberman feels, and you are certainly right about that, so I take your word on Kerry feeling the same. Personally, while I think Lieberman is a very bright and capable guy, I hope he doesn't get the nod. And this is hard for me to say being a Jew and wanting to see a Jewish President in my lifetime.(Rational? Guess not. Emotional? Guess so). But my feeling is that Lieberman is just too eager to please everyone. And that is not a trait for a decisive President. Or Commander in Chief. Kerry, like I said, I don't know that much about. But in the next year and a half, we will all know plenty about every potential candidate (well maybe not all of us....how many did not know about Prescott Bush doing business with Hitler?). And as far as Hillary Clinton...gotta go with you on that one too. While on paper, I should be in her corner (liberal, socially progressive, etc.) I don't think she is deserving of our trust. And not just because of the allegations of Whitewater and insider trading. (Which is worrisome, but again, just unproven allegations). My problem with her is she seems to be just one power hungry egomaniac. If she were a bit more human, she would have expressed her emotions just a little, probably left Bill, and stopped the charade of being the devoted wife (which she is not. I know some of their neighbors in Chapaqua, and things are not very Ozzie and Harriet in Clinton Land). So what is the point? She doesn't need his money. She doesn't get his loyalty and faithfulness (obviously) and so it seems like an alliance of power. And that makes me nervous. Of course anyone who runs for office, especially national office, craves power. But at what price? So scratch her. Besides, I get the feeling that while she is extremely bright, her arrogance may prevent her from taking wise counsel. As a President must. And this brings me back to my real problem with Dubya. In his case, is the arrogance an act? Or is it real? If ever a President needed to be (relatively) humble, it should be Dubya. This is NOT to say I believe he should show indecisiveness. It is just that given the circumstances. There is a huge difference between appearing "weak" and appearing omnipotent. And when you are trampling on the constitution and our 200 years of progress, you need to be a bit more eloquent and convincing. Just saying "we are doing this because it's the right thing to do" just doesn't cut it. At least that is my opinion. And I respect your difference of opinion. Which I know exists. As Michelle put it, God bless Bush, and God bless America. The stiffer the competition, and the tougher the challenges, which are the toughest they have been certainly in at least 30 years for our country, the better off we will all be. The cream always rises to the top. Sometimes the circumstances make the man. Churchill and FDR would have been (and were) great leaders under any circumstances. JFK? If not for his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, maybe he would not have stood out as a leader. His ideals were admirable, but so were Johnson's. Yet LBJ never had the good fortune to make the right call at the right time. Now Dubya may prove to be a great leader. But so far, his plans have not panned out. Reagan got credited for being the defeater of the Soviet Union. Serendipity! Would have happened anyway. So some Presidents go down in history as being great leaders because they were in the right place at the right time, and some get the opposite reputations under opposite circumstances. Wonder what Herbert Hoover's or Calvin Coolege's legacies would have been if they were elected in, oh, let's say 1992. I may not think that Dubya is especially "qualified", but I give him credit just for doing the job. That alone makes him worthy. The office, not the man is what we must respect. And as long as the man upholds his responsibility, it is unfair to judge the man until he has proven to be unworthy. While I think Dubya may be under qualified, and while I think he has abused his powers, the times are not "normal". So I give him the benefit of the doubt. So far, he has at least made his best effort. I do remember others who did not. Dubya at least seems not to be campaigning but rather leading. Which is what we need now. Peace, Rs7
There's only two kinds of people in this country. Republicans and socialists. The Democrat's spent almost 70 years controlling one or both houses of Congress, and in that time Americans have become little more than wards of the state. I wasn't put on this Earth to pay almost half my wages, either directly or indirectly, to various governing bodies. While I have disagreed with President Bush on unsubstantial matters and realize he has not led a perfect life, at least I have full confidence that he shares my ideals on what it takes to keep America safe from terror, and fiscally strong. Any trader who believes that this administration has had one iota of blame for the economies' malaise is an idiot. The markets topped 8 months before the 2000 election and we are in a Global recession. This President inherited a world gone mad and is taking the bull by the horns. Thank God we don't have some whining weasel like Gore as Chief Executive, with the Nancy Pelosi's of the world having a voice in our national affairs.
The more I read this thread, the more I think to myself: "George Bush has a resume?" I bet he doesn't even know how to pronounce "resume" properly. He never needed one to get a job, did he? He see "resume" and thinks it is time to start talking again. I vote no resume for GW.
Only two kinds of people in this country? That's a pretty damn black and white perspective. How long have you been so myopic in your thinking? You never heard of the color gray?
..I will paint my picture Paint myself in blue and red and black and gray All of the beautiful colors are very very meaningful Gray is my favorite color I felt so symbolic yesterday If I knew Picasso I would buy myself a gray guitar and play.. "Mr.Jones" Counting Crows So there!!!
Not that it matters, but the US Government's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Committee Hearings, 107th Congress) has found that recent government policies have increased the cost of oil products to the US People. http://govt-aff.senate.gov/psi.htm That goes well with this, from Bloomberg. Apparently the Brits admitted Iraq was primarily an oil war designed to benefit "Western economies and oil companies". I know our economy could use some fixin', but it doesn't seem to have helped much. Maybe we should take over China. http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email&refer=top_world_news&sid=ahJS35XsmXGg Also, there is a lot of talk that the US government admitted that they knew Saddam didn't have any WMDs all along, but I haven't heard it from whitehouse.gov yet (never will). Here's one interesting site. http://www.sundayherald.com/33628 This isn't intended to be flamebait, it's just interesting reading - if your mind is open, it's interesting; if it's closed, it's flamebait. The problem with politics today is that people are allowing politics to be divisive based on completely arbitrary reasoning - the most common being militant "Party Loyalty". I actually have a friend who said "*Whatever* Bush does is right, because he's a Republican, and so am I." This is completely moronic. This is the mindset of Slavery. Do you like the Republicans because they are good, or are they good because they are Republicans? What we should be doing, if we want to approach this the right way, is to judge each issue individually, by a set standard (like the Constitution, the Bible, the Bill of Rights, Ayn Rand's philosophy, whatever turns your crank) and try to influence our leaders to do what's *best* in the situation, what promotes the virtues you believe in, not just follow their preferred platform. That's a shortcut around thinking. If people were honest with themselves (most of them aren't, even here), they'd have to admit that the Republicans are strong in one area, the Democrats are strong in another. This complete hatred and demonization of one party or the other is retarded. The same friend I mentioned earlier refuses to watch anything with Martin Sheen in it because he's a Democrat. He hates Ben Affleck for the same reason - and god knows, there are a lot of better reasons than that to hate Ben Affleck. All I'm saying is that Bush is a politician. He sucks. Clinton is a politician. He sucks. You're all right, because they're both politicians. They are both in the business of collecting and spending public money. That's it. Right now, that's their job description. Anyone who is an unpaid cheerleader for ANY of these politicians is crazy. Don't you think that if Bush pushes for a tax cut, it's to buy your loyalty so he can spend your money for another four years and make himself richer and more powerful than you can ever dream of being with a lifetime of honest hard trading? If it's a tax break for the ultra-wealthy, don't you think the massive donations that can be expected come campaign time have anything to do with it? Since when are politicians our ALLIES? By the way... Have you guys seen the debt recently? We're *barely* making interest payments. Just wanted to mention it while you kill yourselves over important issues like Clinton's oral sex habit and Bush's DUI conviction and connections with Halliburton and the Nazi Party. Solving these universal mysteries won't pay off the debt or bring back the dead babies in Iraq or whatever. Disclaimer: I'm a Libertarian, just in case you want to attack my beliefs in accordance with the Rules of Propaganda.
AHHHHHH! THE VAST EVIL LIBERAL CONSPIRACY IS FINALLY REVEALED!!!!! CHANGE ALL YOU DOLLARS INTO GOLD, BURY IT IN THE GROUND. THOSES LIBERALS WILL STEAL ALL WE HAVE AND GIVE TO THE NO GOOD LAZY MINORITIES. THE LIBERALS ARE GOING TO RAISE TAXES TO A 90% MARGINAL RATE AND GIVE FREE ABORTIONS TO ALL MINORITY GIRLS ON DEMAND. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! how do you know what their true agenda is? Did you eavesdrop on a secret conversation? I love the charge about dividing people by race, class ethnicity. I know all those good law abiding conservative white folk just can't wait to welcome the black folk into their neighborhoods with open arms.