Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Bush's resume

Apparently, Rickshaw, it seems to be rather common knowledge that most of Lay's donations went to the Republican party. Here's a typical article

The reality is that whichever side we are on, we use the facts that support our positions and ignore those that don't. This is why political discussions usually get nowhere. I'll freely admit that I detest Bush - I think he's the worst scumbag president of the U.S. ever. Is my dislike for him totally rational? Probably not. But I think you're in the same boat with your support for him and your dislike of Clinton. You will never convince me and I will never convince you (and I won't even try). Needless to say, I enjoy reading your opinions and respect your right to hold them.

Can we lay off Michael Moore?

He's a filmmaker, not a politician, and the Bill of Rights gives him the right to say whatever he damn well pleases. By slamming him in every post, you actually indirectly give credence to his views.

He's not even a particularly good documentarian. He is very good at entertaining while he spouts rhetoric, but hell, so is Rush Limaugh. And as far as the "truth" goes, I would put Moore and Limbaugh about in the same category. I find it mildly ridiculous that a somewhat whacked-out left-wing filmmaker is such a scary thorn in the side of conservatives. If his conjecture really is that much of a threat, maybe the Bush administration really is a house of cards built on quicksand.

And incidentally, I don't even consider whoever wins the Presidency to be such a big fat hairy deal. It's a big dog and pony show to get people riled up and to give us our bread and circuses. In January 2005, it will be back to business as usual in Washington, regardless of whoever is elected to office.

Seriously. It matters less than you think. There are 9 people in Washington who do 90% of the governing in this country, and their names are Stephens, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

Umm, actually rickshaw put "facts" out there where anyone could challenge or respin them. You didn't.

The country was, is, and will most likely remain predominantly registered Democrat yet the polls do not show much swing off of even. With the Electoral college, where those votes are will determine the result. I'd say the "average" person still remains undecided.

If I read your post correctly, aren't you also calling the Democrats hypocrits? Well, come-on, they're politicians too!


I remain steadfast, my resolve unpenetratable (?), I believe everyone.

I couldn't care less about the AWOL thing. Bush was living it up while Kerry's life was on the line. Good joke, though, about him being in the military.

It's not about the ribbons. It's about being shot at. It's only about the ribbons when you survive, get home, and end up dealing with the imps who were cheerleading their way through the National Guard and medical deferments.

Uh, this is your issue, not mine. Feel free to keep posting about it.

I'm still waiting for the facts with references. So far, I've only seen Sanity bother to do that.

References? You want references? My old English teacher always wanted references and she was an "Evil Doer!" Hmmmmm.

Actually, notice please the "" around "facts" and my comment "where they can be challenged or respun." I believe I adequately recognized the level of the facts supplied by rickshaw.

Kent supplied only personal feelings and vindictives. Pretty safe stuff from challenge that. Doesn't take any political will at all. That's why I do the same.

I won't dispute that, though honestly I might dispute whether it has been actually Bush rather than Cheney or Rumsfield providing the leadership, but that is totally a matter of conjecture, and not worthy of debate, really. I don't think strong leadership is enough, though. Let's look back: we've pulled out of nuclear arms treaties, we've invaded a sovereign country (yes, it was a morally bankrupt despotism. We were still the aggressor though,) we utilized half-truths and intelligence conjectures to attempt to justify it, we've seriously damaged relations with many nations throughout the world, we have sacrificed nearly 1000 of our young people's lives in this effort. We have spent billions upon billions of dollars on the war. And thus far we have very little to show for it.

In the plus column, we did kick Afghanistan's ass. Unfortunately, in so doing, we lost most of Al-Qaida through the cracks. Bush did lower taxes. Of course, most of us pay more at the pump now over a year's time than we get back in taxes. Now that may or may not have anything to do with the war in Iraq. And then we have the huge surplus we had in 2000 suddenly turning into a huge freakin deficit in 2004. Now I'm not an economist, so talk of deficits and such over years of time is pretty much Greek to me. Still, it sounds bad.

Uh, Bush talked about the Republican Party being a party of inclusion and America being a place of inclusion in 2000. Unfortunately, at this point, he is completely excluding blacks (as evidenced by his refusal to speak to the NAACP in an election year) and homosexuals (by his support of the FMA.) It's obvious that he wasn't really serious when he talked about inclusion in 2000.

So strong leadership? Sure, why not? It's not enough for me, because I don't like the places he's taken us and will continue to take us. I don't believe you go conquer people just because you feel like it. I don't believe you marginalize minority groups in your basic policy. Now, I have a tough decision to make on whether I'm going to vote my conscience or vote to attempt to remove Bush from office in November. Is removing Bush from office enough of a reason to vote for Kerry in November? I just don't know.

Now there's some good facts mixed with opinions mixed with well reasoned conclusions.

Two thoughts I'd take issue with (no links or facts to back them up) are these two.

Since the inner city is the base within which I work, I'd say he's actually gaining more support from blacks with this stance. Conservative blacks or those that have sucessfully meandered through the business world are turning conservative. I'm starting to hear more and more disallusionment with NAACP within the poorer communities, which are also very religious. It's a choice between methods not perceived to have worked over the last 40 years, the NAACP's, and joining the side that seems to have control.

If you can't beat them, join them.

As for the other I agree for other reasons. There was no risk of losing the homosexual vote as it was minor in number. Not proposing/supporting FMA in deference to gay votes would have excluded more (religious right) than it gained. This however I think backfired because he/they underestimated that conservative movement that wants government out of the private life, be that life "traditional" or not. IMO the support/inclusion he lost was not the gay vote. It was the middle conservative vote.

Not only that, but Bush IS speaking to the urban league. Why would he speak to the organization that financed the campaign saying he wanted more black men to be killed like the dragging victim in texas because he didn't support hate crimes?

He did support the death penalty, though. And they were convicted. Gosh, i guess they wanted the killers deader than dead? Remember, the Supreme court just ruled that taking into account certain factors in sentencing is probably illegal. Bad Bush, Bad Bush...i don't think so.

Election result facts...

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/wire_ballotcount010510.html

here's the next...

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/alt/01/recount.html

and here is another...

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/herald_ballots010226.html

Now, these are just a few. But they disprove the "stole the election" thing. I can go on, but as you can see, these results are not from "bush leaning" organizations.

I'll go back and refresh my memory as to what i talked about if you really want me to.

But, here's the thing, Semi is right. I am not gonna change you, you aren't gonna change me. And here is something else. I don't really care for Bush. I don't hate him either. But of the choices, i think he is the better choice.

And that is my personal opinion, and i explained above why he gets my vote.

Here is some stuff on "enron"...

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A798_0_2_0_C/

here is another one that shows just how far, or how little, they got for their bucks...

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\\Politics\\archive\\200201\\POL20020111h.html

Want more? This info, and other info, shows that BOTH parties had their hands in the til. So saying it was all those dirty so and so repubs is a LIE. Include both parties and you get the truth.

ummmm....hello?

And another thing... everybody keeps talking about high gas prices, like that's Bush's fault. I seem to remember a $0.50 per gallon tax levied during the second Clinton administration that is still being enforced. It sure would be nice to have that off of the books.

I'm pretty much with richshaw1 here, there's some things about Bush that I don't like, but when it comes down to who is the better choice to lead the country, it's Bush over Kerry.

Feh. Bush is so 4 years ago. I think I'll give that Kerry chap a chance!

Besides, this will free up the Bush daughters to become the Political version of the Hilton Sisters, as they've been itching to do for so long!

Lashie, you are demented. God i love that quality in a human, lol.

Man, i didn't mean to kill the discussion.

It's certainly clear that different conclusions are available from the facts. Such as the one that Bush is a better leader than Kerry would be. I don't want to be lead by an inflexible bully. But that's really just a matter of choice.

That is a good point. But to hit the ball back into your court, wasn't it a Republican-controlled Congress that passed the legislation to sign that into law?

Neither would I, APB. But i also wouldn't want to be led by an indecisive waffler.

You call it bully, i call it someone that has a clear vision of what needs to be done and doesn't see the practicality of stickin' his finger in the wind like mayor Quimby from the Simpsons.

I saw above where someone called us the "aggressors", like that is a bad thing always, without exception, exclusively. If someone was holding your family hostage, threatening them at every possible turn, even if it was only a bluff, would you stand for it after repeated attempts to get them to curb their behavior?

If you would, if you would allow your family to be "bullied" by someone like that, then you are of the same mindset that a country should allow itself or others to be bullied by a small group of madmen for no other reason that an absolute desire for "peace". You can only have peace if BOTH SIDES want it. And one side did not.

That side believed in murder, rape, torture, child enslavement, gasing, and was actively seeking to come up with greater weapons of destruction while helping to fund terrorist organizations.

Okay, say Kerry gets to be president, what is he gonna do?

I don't want "I would go to the UN and make friends" answers. Those are crap without something to back them up. Give me examples of where he has stated in clear terms with specifics what he would do.

I am not kidding. Please tell me. He is running as the Anti-Bush, tell him to prove up. I promise to listen. If it makes sense, then we can honestly talk.

Sigh...

Certainly, no one should be able to thoughtfully change their mind.

That's what I would expect you to call it.

Responding to that is not being the aggressor, it is defending yourself. That is why we went to Afghanistan. One good call this administration made that I and many others supported.

This sounds like Iraq, which is a different side than what you mentioned before. Actually the characteristics you list widen the scope beyond just Iraq. In fact, the scope would include the United States thanks to our treatment of POWs. We really should refocus our efforts on defending ourselves from ourselves.

And, I think you meant: "...was actively thinking of seeking to come up with programs that would talk about greater weapons of destruction while imagining they had the funds of Saudi Arabia with which they could help fund terrorist organizations."

Here you go.

Yeah, and we believe in abusing political prisoners held in foreign prisons in limbo without due process, as well as holding Arab-American citizens without due process in Guantanamo Bay. It's really only a difference of degree.

You know, if we had gone to war using the rationale that Hussein was a bad man and he needed to be stopped, I could accept that. Unfortunately, the reason we went to war was because our government told us that he had WMD's and was itching to use them. Can you deny that the administration's stance pre-war was in any way duplicitious toward the American people?

As far as Iraq's intent pre-war, you'll have to back that up with facts. Seriously. When did they directly threaten the U.S. in any way? When did they fund terror organizations? When did they do ANYTHING? Cause they sure got a direct response. How many Iraqi civilians are dead because of us? Remember, the 9-11 commission found no direct link between Iraq and Al-Qaida. A few friendly overtures over the years, and that's it. Which was why they were set up in Afghanistan. Which was why we kicked the Taliban's ass.

Why did we go to war with Iraq? Answer me that. And no more rhetoric about my family and your family until you can show me that their family presented ANY appreciable threat to us, necessitating not only our active forces, but ALL of our reserves, who of course now are being denied the right to go home once their tours are up. Then you can have free rein with that analogy. You talk about facts, so where's the facts? Why did we go to war with Iraq? Why was it necessary?

I recall having the feeling that there was no way to stop it from happening. I'm also fairly conservative from an economic POV, but if I were to get to ask one question at these "Ask the President" meetings I would ask "hypothetically, what action would the populace have had to take to stop use of conventional military forces against Iraq?" It seems most ALL the politicians were on a war footing (except mine, bless her).

Yeah and I'm still shaking my head at that , it still had to go through Clinton's ok though. And either way you look at it, Bush had nothing to do with either thing happening.

What I am convinced of though is that the OPEC nations have artificially increased oil prices to make the American people unhappy with the current American policy makers, in an effort to influence the upcoming election. No matter what these governments say, there is no way that they want America influencing/dictating mid-east policy. Oil prices are really the only thing they have to wield against America that affects us on a large scale.

Then they're awfully smart, because their little plot is working.

It really depends on whether you believe the Bushes (particularly, Bush sr.) are in bed with the House of Saud. If not, then the logic of OPEC raising oil prices to get Bush out of office makes sense. If you do, then it doesn't.