# Poor Mr Bush



## Soapvox (Jun 13, 2001)

On e draw back of working from home is  that i watch the news channels all day.  When Clinton was in office it was interesting to say the least, but with Gov Bush in the office it makes me sad to be an american.   To my point, has anyone else been watching him  over  in Europe?  Is it  just me or is he being  an angry american  whenever  a reporter asks him  a  question.


Canada here I come!


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 13, 2001)

Xmmmm....
I havent seen the news, but being greek-american (born here of greece descent, raised aprly in greece and partly here) I have been of dual though, euro and american.  

I think that sometimes people are too stuck up on BOTH sides, but when it comes down to it I support the national interest of the USA as far as I think fitting.


btw is bush wearing a cowboy hat & cowboy boots ??? 


Admiral


----------



## RacerX (Jun 13, 2001)

I voted for Gore because he once had a powerbook duo   like mine! (okay, maybe that wasn't the only reason, but it a good one)


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 13, 2001)

I voted for bush because gore claimed to be the inventor of the internet   damn egomanic lol .. he did not invent the internet!


----------



## RacerX (Jun 14, 2001)

Wow, that was an interview where Gore (who was THE leading force behind the funding from the government to create the fiber-optic back bone of the internet that we use today) had misspoke his response to the interviewers question. This does not change the fact that his is the main reason we have the internet the way is is today, without his support (because no one else was going to step forward for this techie pipe dream) we would be today where we were back in 1996 as far was infrastructure (that is a system that could only support about 10,000,000 servers). No one else saw what the internet could be back in 1991 when Gore first started to push this issue as a senator. As vice president when the democrats controls both houses of congress, his was able to push through the funding that would NEVER have been possible in a climate like today (makes you wonder what great idea might be being still born as we speak).

But that was a perfect example of the republican media machine during the election. The republicans put together a media saturation team designed to give the media what it love more than a liberal view point, dirt (accurate or not) that they could run with (by the end of the election, some news groups where actually coming TO the republicans asking for the next story). The funny thing is, once some idea is thrown out there (like Microsoft innovating all the cool features in Windows that were actual around for in other operating systems from 5 to 10 years earlier, Microsoft uses that same media tactic if disinformation to promote themselves) it is very hard to correct. 

What we ended up with is a man without vision, who is currently trying to recreate the Reagan years (even though his father thought that the policies of Reagan were flawed at the least, you may be to young to remember the Bush-Reagan debate where Bush called Reagan's ideas VooDoo economics). This current recreation of star wars does nothing to fight the current real threat, terrorists walking or driving into a city to destroy it (it is fitting to note that NO missile defense system would have saved Oklahoma City in 1995, or the World Trade Center a few years earlier).

With every new misstep of our new president I long for the days of yesteryear. No, not the last Administration, but the one of the REAL President Bush, a man who's shoes baby Bush is no where close to filling.

"I voted for bush because gore claimed to be the inventor of the internet damn egomanic lol .. he did not invent the internet!'

Maybe not, but you owe that fact that we have it to him none the less. And Microsoft was one of Bush's biggist supporters... care to venture a guess why?


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 14, 2001)

The thing I despise politically about this country is the dual party system.  I have spend a few (well more like 10) years in greece and everyyear I watched my grandparents go vote.... there myst be at least 6 major parties in greece and at least another 30 minor ones.

It would be nice to have some choce here too... democrat, republican, no vote .... teh reform party is like a non-vote ... urgh... I think that pragmatologically both dems & reps are made from the same cloth, I dont see a diff.  Ideologically there is a diff but no politician had the balls to stand up for what he was elected for, he just goes with the current so that he may get re-elected .... 

I have to say that politicians thus are whores.


Admiral
--> Admiral for senate 20xx !!!!!!! ...admiral for President 20xx !!!!!!! <--


----------



## Soapvox (Jun 14, 2001)

I agree with you admiral, the problem is is that once you are elected you have to start raising money for your re-election campaign.  There is just to much damn money in politics.  The only way to make our politicians become true politicians  is to take the money out of politics.  I have an idea how this could happen, you give each canidate equal free media time, including television, print, debates,  and radio.  Get the money out and watch out world, we might actually do something and become prosperous and peaceful, reduce polution and get rid of this damn energy problem in california


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 14, 2001)

The only radio stations & TV channels that would happen on would be PBS (Public Broadcasting) and NPR (National Public Radio) ... all other stations are too capitalistic thats why these political whores need $$$$$$$ .... and you cant really pass a bill to mandate that stations provide free time for ads and lots of debates because it seems uncostitutional ...


----------



## Soapvox (Jun 14, 2001)

But the networks have to lease the  airwaves from  the fcc, so you  put  in those contracts  that they have to a lot a certain number of hours to  political commercials  and debates.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 14, 2001)

Broadcast stations use to have to air a certain number of hours of community and childerns programming (which became Sunday morning religous programs and Saturday morning cartoons for most stations 20 years ago). It real shouldn't be that hard to get them to give time to elections, but the networks have a great loby group working for them


----------



## Soapvox (Jun 14, 2001)

If you  have the money for lobbying groups, you can buy what you want to happen, when the people had a voice things  got done, but now everyone has a  special intrest to lobby  for  so  nothing gets done for  the little guy, like healthcare and schooling.   We  are spending  so much more  on  prisons  than schools.   My  sister inlaw just got her degree in  teaching and is going to teach  at a poor  school  in Washington  state,  she  says that for  her  school they  have 1 computer  lab that  has  18 working computers  on a  good day... these  children are going to  be  electronic lepers  as  they grow up because they were not allowed  access  to computers,  they  are using  Social study  books from  8 years  ago, do  you  remember 1993,  think about how  much   has changed since then.   Also  they  don't have enough  english or  math  books  for  every  class,  so they  keep the books on a cart and shuttle  them  back and forth  between each  class,  which means these  children  can't take the books home  to study.   I am  so sick  of living  in a  republic and  not  a true democracy!


----------



## jdog (Jun 14, 2001)

I voted for Bush because the guy who impersonates him on Saturday Night Live does a better job than the guy who plays Gore.  I would rather watch 4 years of the Bush guy.  

In my opinion, the President is nothing more than a GUI for the party he is affiliated with.  He is basically a ventrilliquists (spelling?) dummy with more than one hand up his ass (his so called "advisors").  

This country is no longer "by the people, for the people."  We are now subjects of the government.  This happend the moment government officals (probably military) decided to with-hold information for the "saftey" of the country.  In other words, we the public, are to stupid to think for oursleves, therefore the government will decide whats best for us and not the other way around.

Do you realize that one of the main reasons our forefathers broke away from England was the taxes they were forced to pay.  I do not have the figures on it, but relativly speaking, we are paying a LOT more than they were in taxes.

My state (Nevada) tells me that it is a privlege for me to drive, not a right.  They force me to pay almost $.50/gallon tax on gas, plus everyother tax we pay that goes towards the buliding/maintenance of our roads and tell me it is my privlege that they let me drive?  Uh-hm...I think I have paid enough for that god-damn road to allow me the RIGHT to drive on it.  

Sorry for the rants but I am on a role now...

In my state, out driving policy is based on a point system, a speeding ticket is woth 2 points, running a red light is four, etc.  If you get 16 points in a one year period, you will have your license suspended.  This is a good system.  But the police also have to power to ticket you.  They can basically take your money when ever they feel like it.  I have been pulled over three times during my life, and everytime I got a ticket.  The very first time I got a ticket, I was doing 78mph on a 65mph freeway at 2:30 in the morning.  This is the FIRST time I had ever been pulled over and the cop writes me a $60 ticket.  I know of two women who have been pulled over, one doing 55 in a 45 and another doing 45 in a 25 and who also ran a stop sign, neither one got a ticket.  I do not like the fact that police have the power to take MY money based on how they feel at the time.  They point system is great and I think it really detures unsafe behavior, but I think I pay enough money to my local government to not worry about them taking anymore.  Oh, yeah and do you know what that money from those tickets buys?  Cars like Ford Expeditions and Camaros.  An expedition starts at $30,000 and lord knows how much after they put all their cop crap on it.  Plus its an enormous SUV that gets really crappy gas mileage.  Is this nessecary?

Ok, I've blabbed enough
-jdog


----------



## Soapvox (Jun 14, 2001)

What  about  the  insurance lobby, they make it a requirement for insurance(which  I don't feel too badly about) but  then  they  get the right  to  gouge you at every  chance.  My  wife  and I  are both over 25,  never  an  accident,  never  a ticket,  not even parking tickets.  We moved to San  Francisco and being earth  concience citizens decided we  did not need  our car in the city... so  we sold our car and cancelled our insurance,  9 months later my wife moves back to Oregon to go to school, so  we buy a new safe family car with  all of the safety and anti  theft features, they jack up our rate 75% because we  had  a lapse in  insurance,  uh  we  did not  have a car but  they  expect  us  to keep our insurance,   it  is  a scam.  And  to add insult to injury  I can't  get medical insurance because I was diagnosed with chrohns disease 12 years ago.  When I say I  can't get insurance, I can but  the cheapest  I  can get is $225  a  month and  it wont  cover my  pre-existing,  so a)  it  is not  affordable b)  it  doesn't cover what I need it for, I have  to  pay  $5,000  a year  for  a  special  test  out of pocket.   Insurance companies  are a speacial  intrest that needs to be properly regulated!


----------



## RacerX (Jun 14, 2001)

No fault didn't exactly help either. I look at my Dad who has payed auto insurance all his life, and wonder just how much those companies got without ever having to pay out! There should be a limit! You pay until you reach.. oh lets say $15,000, and then you stop. If you have an accident, it comes out of that and you start replacing the funds until you get back to the limit again. (Actually, as I recall, in California if you have over a certain amount ot fluid funds (something like over $125,000, I read this back in '89), you can be considered self-insured.

But that is NOTHING compared to health! You pay and pay, then if you come down with something really expensive, you can be dropped!

There is something very immoral about insurance being a profit drive industry. It is alway more profittable to insure people when they don't need insurance and to drop them when they do.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 14, 2001)

"Do you realize that one of the main reasons our forefathers broke away from England was the taxes they were forced to pay. I do not have the figures on it, but relativly speaking, we are paying a LOT more than they were in taxes."

I think your missing a key point there... "taxation without representation" was the the actual reason. The colonist payed taxes when they were in England, but they had a representative in the governement working on there behalf, in the colonies, you were taxed without any say how much, and where it would go, or what items could be taxed.

Taxation hasn't been that bad for me, and it not like I'll see a BIG tax cut, I not part of the "mid-class" (you know family income of $250,000 per year).


----------



## Soapvox (Jun 14, 2001)

I have no problem paying taxes ( I am true middle class $75000yr) if my  taxes are going to do the right things, if you think we have representation, go back to the first posting, we are limited  to the  people  who can raise the most money, not  the ones that will  represent  us best.  I have no problem  even paying 40% in taxes (34% now) if my taxes ensured my  child is going to get  a good  education, if I were injured I would not have an insane medical bill,  when my parents retire, they don't have to pay $300  a month  just for their medicine, if we were protecting the environment, but instead my money goes to wasteful spending, it  goes to murdering inmates, it pays for a over zealous military, and corporate welfare.  This country needs to start listening to its people or canada is going to have a boom in imigrants


----------



## RacerX (Jun 14, 2001)

We shouldn't forget the current battle cry for coorperations buying elected official: "it is a matter of free speech!" 

A majority of people voted liberally in the last election, but they cancelled each other out. It just goes to show that the old sayings are the best : "United we stand, divided we fall". Why do you think the republican party use such a large amount of money towards the end of a compain to run pro-Nader adds? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't because they agreed with his liberal views. They knew they didn't have the votes, but every vote for Nader was one less for Gore. They stopped running on issues (because they would lose) and ran to win at all cost. The down fall of the '92 and '96 elections was the far right hurting the Republicans in the primaries, they learned to keep them quite during the election and let the far left do to the Democrats what had been happening to them.

This government is what you get when the voters are ill informed of the issues and players. Any one who is surprised by the current tack on so many issues don't take to time to look at young Bush's record before voting. I knew his record, I knew Gore's, I knew Clinton's, I knew Dole's, I really knew Bush senior's record (and he wouldn't be doing half this stuff by the way). I'll say I am disappointed by what I see Bush doing, but not surprised.

PS

I moved from San Diego to Minneapolis, so I'm almost to Canada if need be   (though I'm not sure I can take this whole weather thing much longer, they actually have it here)


----------



## apb3 (Jun 14, 2001)

I voted for Bush and supported him heavily from the early pre-primary days and nearly froze in NH (a short drive from here in Boston) where he lost to McCain.

I am middle class however, I come from money. This has no effect on my political views. I am a staunch supporter of 1st amendment rights, limitation of police powers (I thought we lived in a country in which we were not allowed an army to enforce local laws on US citizens (got that idea from Rome I think).  I think most SWAT teams are as well outfitted - almost- as my unit was in the Gulf.), limited legalization (and taxation, quality control, etc) of drugs, a smaller federal gov't with possibly more power to the states, Globalization, free trade (that is FAIR), hell - that's enough, if you care message me.

As you can see, not all of my views fit with Bush's. This doesn't matter. As stated, he's a GUI. Where I disagree is that he is not a GUI for his party anymore once he's won the election (he's already pissed some of his party buddies off), he's a GUI for America.

I just could not see Gore being able to get anything done in negotiations, crises, getting respect from the rest of the world, etc. This is a problem for VPs in general but I think he had some extra liabilities.

In the negotiations/interactions with foreign leaders I've seen involving Bush, I've been impressed. I think China especially was handled rather well (maybe papa Bush's experience helped here).

Also, Gore is a big hands-on guy. Not a quality I feel is good for the leader of ANY large corporation/nation. Delegation/listening to those who know and have first-hand/close-up experience is key. From what I've seen. This is Bush's style. Maybe some of you will say this is because he's just stupid. I disagree. I think this is one of his greatest assets.

Gotta cut this short, conference call w/ client in a few.


----------



## Soapvox (Jun 14, 2001)

apb I am not flaming you, please understand!  I just don't see how you can say  Bush is anything other than a bumbling fool  when it comes to international policy.  The China scenario was handled well, a little too much machismo on both  sides but  all in all there wasn't a war.  But have  you watched the  news in the past few days, in  Europe Bush (and as the GUI for america) is a joke, we come off as murderers, power hungry jerks.  And for Bush being a GUI for america, how can he be a gui for america, if over  half of voters didn't vote for him  (remember, he won the electorial not the popular).  Now I am not saying that Gore was  a whole hell of  a  lot better, but at least he has a decent IQ.


----------



## apb3 (Jun 14, 2001)

haha conference call cancelled!

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/13/bush.greenfield/



He's a GUI for america because he won. regardless of by what percent or by what measure.

I'm not taking this as a flame. We're all entitled to our opinions and I've fought and killed  for everyone's right to think and express those thoughts no matter what I think of them.

Aside from the link above re: europe's view of new presidents, they've always had a problem with our death penalty. A lot of Americans do too.

From my experience overseas (about 9 years in total), everyone who isn't the big guy on the block (or perceived as such anyway) criticizes the perceived big guy. I really don't see the US as power hungry (maybe power possessing, but that's a quirk of history and probably not a permanent thing - ask England). Power hungry to me means (1) you don't have the power and (2) you try to gain it. This seems to me more like a North Korea for example (and not to single out and generalize about any Koreans reading this).

Bush MAY be not the greatest thinker but like I said in my earlier post, he surrounds himself with some of the greatest experts on various issues. AND he listens to them. This is a trait I feel that exemplifies one's "IQ" better than any actual score.


----------



## tagliatelle (Oct 20, 2001)

I think rich.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Oct 20, 2001)

this thread is a blast from the past


----------



## apb3 (Oct 20, 2001)

Yeah!

And I think Soapvox' idea that Europe views Bush as a bumbling fool has been soundly disproved in light of recent developments (if my earlier link to CNN didn't convince). If they believed him such a fool I don't think NATO would've invoked article 13 (an attack on one is an attack on all) immediately after the 11th.


----------



## Soapvox (Oct 20, 2001)

Europe and America (in general terms) are allies and just because Bush is an idiot does not mean that Europe ( mainly England) wont support us when we are attacked, but we also have to wonder are we being led as sheeps are into a war that has no end and is senseless.  Don't get me wrong it is abhorent what has happened to America and in now way do I think we deserved anything that has happened to us, but when everything is said and done are we going to learn from our follies that created the situation we are in now or keep on going around the globe as a bunch of bully idiots, or are we going to learn that we need to take care of our country and lead by example and not by force.  I still say Bush is a bumbling idiot and think that most Europeans probably agree, but we also realize that he has one hell of a situation here and we have to hope that he will make the wisest decisions he can and follow the advice of his cabinent and listen to the voice of opposition to find out the proper ground to end this as quickly and with as few HUMAN casualties as possible, please people don't flame me this is my opinion and that is what this country is about the right to state our opinions without being persecuted because they are different, like I said we need to lead by example!


----------



## apb3 (Oct 21, 2001)

I'm sorry, but I cannot let your statement that Bush is an "idiot" stand. Please show me your data to back that up. I think I've made my point that intelligence is a cagey thing to quantify...

I also cannot believe that you actually meant to say that this war is "senseless." 

Your view is known as Isolationism and has been the cause of more suffering and bloodshed than anything else in recent U.S. history. U.S. isolationist policy put us in the awful and unprepared states in which we found ourselves as we entered the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Had we actually focused on the world beyond our borders we could have been prepared for both conflicts; ending them with far less bloodshed for all combatants and civilians and probably without the use of nukes (in WWII). Source: Fukuyama (novels: End of History and the Last Man; and Trust), my grandfather (Colonel, US Army, Pacific Theatre OSS, Ret.), maternal grandfather (Commander, German Navy U-Boot Service, lost in action, North Atlantic ; info from Diary, notes and letters), my great grandfather (Major, Kaiser's Cavalry, French Sector, deceased; notes from an unfinished manuscript)

Sorry, Soap, but leading by example just doesn't work. I know this as a matter of both philosophy and practice. I did honors work in political science and international relations/political economy at Boston University, Yonsei University / ROK, Edinburgh, Scotland, University of Pretoria, ZA and Valparaiso Law. It's sad to say, but some people in this world just hate us. They hate our freedoms. They hate our wealth. They hate the way we let our women work. They hate the fact that they NEED us to feed their people. Damn, they resent our "leading by example!" That's not going to change. But basically, they hate us because of their own failure. Yes, their own failure. This is not just my opinion (read the contemporary writer Fareed Zakaria (sp?) and other writers on this subject; even back to Patton, von Klauswitz and even Sun Tzu)

In practical terms, I served in the US Army. I served in the Gulf and I was assigned to UN Operations in two countries. I've been spit on by the same people I was risking my life and leading by example to liberate. Once I made Captain, I worked with a British unit as Intel Officer in Sarajevo. We tried  to lead by example and ended up with our hands tied, our rifles charged and targeted (my CAR-15's red dot had a militiaman pegged for a head shot), while some Slavs slaughtered women and children in front of us because they happened to be of a different religion. We weren't under attack so the rules of engagement (our "leading by example" civilised rules of engagement), didn't allow us to lay down even suppressing fire. We had to wait until they withdrew and then we dragged the bodies to a gymnasium as the Slavs would leave them out to rot as a warning or whatever. Tried to give them some dignity. At least they didn't rape or impale them as usual. I'm sure some husbands, fathers, grandparents, etc... would have loved us to be what you term "a bunch of bullying idiots" and drop those Slavs where they stood. The bastards actually smiled at us as they strutted back to their BMP.

If you're interested I have other examples of this line of thinking you espouse leading to just plain terrible things. Some specific/tactical, some abstract/strategic. I'd just prefer to talk about them privately. Actually I'd prefer not to talk about it at all but I think it's important that people know these things.

You dismiss the invocation of Article 13 too lightly. It has NEVER been invoked and requires unanimous consent of member nations. While not exactly spelled out, this action pretty much puts the man you say they consider an idiot in charge of all strategic decisions. Theatre Commanders will have tactical latitude, but even that would be held up to strategic scrutiny.

Also, your statement that most Europeans probably agree that Bush is a bumbling idiot is a gross generalization. You know what they say about generalizations... 

While I might agree that certain sectors of European society may not like Bush's ideas (mostly due to economic and imagined conspiracy theories espoused by the Grns, Communists, Fascists, locally repressed ethnic minorities and other discredited, directionless groups and subgroups - some members of which I know personally; ex-girlfriend, university buddies, etc), I have to say that, dealing with Europeans on an almost daily basis, this is just not the case with either the "regular" people (relatives of mine, friends, their families and other acquaintances) or the political/economic/educational elite (business associates, colleagues, former classmates, friends) . The squeaky wheel gets the grease, you know - and the occasional rubber bullet or water canon. A highly vocal minority makes a big impact with the talking heads and 24/7 media drones. AND, I don't think any of those that criticize Bush's policies would call him an idiot as you do. Europeans tend to stay away from personal attacks when debating policy issues - it's seen as a sign that you have no real facts to dispute and so you rely on personal attacks to "discredit" or dishonor your adversary. When that happens the other side usually considers it a win for their side. Americans don't follow that path in debate as a rule, unless they've some training in debate and cultural differences therein.

If anything, Europeans saw Clinton as a laughing stock. He decimated our military. He basically got rid of all our human (wet) intelligence assets on the ground throughout the world - a leading problem we are just now trying to remedy - in favor of tech assets that just don't have the info gathering capabilities/initiative/flexibility that a man on the ground has. He blew it when we didn't buy the Russian scientists involved in NBC warfare ( OK, it wasn't just Clinton at fault for that, but it came to a head under his "leadership" if we can term it as such). He put us in bed with the Chinese (the ones who cheered when WTC burned and collapsed) who are, along with their DPRK lapdogs,  THE next big threat to world security - IM me for references on this, I need to find the books and papers I wrote. Taiwan's "rogue province" status to PRC is just the stepping stone (we can discuss this in detail if you want). He had no foreign policy in the Balkans (NATO commanders - European ones since you use Europeans as a measuring stick for U.S. Presidents' abilities - just upped and resigned stating that his "plans" were idiotic, impotent and pointless). He replaced honorable, decorated and highly capable military commanders just because they wouldn't back down and follow his objective-less ops. He backed down from every confrontation - UN inspectors in Iraq, Bin Laden, Arafat's threats and refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist in violation of the working agreement and Mitchell Plan(he actually shook his hand and kissed his cheek for one of his all-important photo ops!)

Europe and America ARE allies (in much more than the general terms you claim). But saying that Europe will blindly support a man you call an idiot just because we were attacked doesn't say much for the intelligence of those Europeans you seem to hold in high regard, does it. Again, the NATO resolution is a BIG deal. I don't think many people realize this.

Lastly, Bush is the first President in recent history we've had who has had the balls to actually communicate to the people that this is a new kind of war. For those of you lucky enough to not have experienced war, it must be more difficult to wrap your brains around the concept. To eradicate terrorism, there will be casualties. It will be long and drawn-out. If I hadn't already done my bit and been wounded in the process, I'd re-up in an instant. It's that important that we secure a safe world for future generations - not just Americans. My wife and I just recently found out that we're (well SHE'S) pregnant. Have you ever been to Israel? I have. And if we, with or without our allies, don't do what needs to be done to shut down the terrorists, their money and their networks; that's the kind of nation we will have. That's not the America for my kid - having his/her bus blown up by some suicide bomber on the way to school.

That said, my civil libertarian side raises its head. We also need to be careful that we preserve our way of life and the freedoms we enjoy as Americans - all types of Americans. Security does need to be enhanced but not at the expense of our liberties. The founding fathers would shoot us if they heard some of the crap rolling down the halls of Congress. Argh. It's a tough call. And I find myself oftentimes torn in my opinions re: the security vs. liberty issues. I've quoted elsewhere on these boards: paraphrasing Bennie Franklin, "He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither." or it's "...will have neither." If someone has the quote, please post it for me.

Soap: like I said, I respect your opinion - I've fought and killed for your right to think and say whatever you believe. I just disagree. That's healthy. Debate is good and it keeps us thinking. Between the two of us (and maybe the Admiral Ass Kick(ss)er), we can come to some new and better theory on this.

Could we have this discussion in Afghanistan? or a boatload of other countries? No way. We truly are fortunate.


----------

