How much does it take...?

Esquilinho said:
BTW, just a tiny OFF-TOPIC: how can a country be governed by a Constitution that is over 200 years old??? I mean, people change, the society changes, the world changes, it makes no sense to keep the same constitution after all this time!
Click to expand...

I'm having a hard time deciding if you are being satirical or not.

The Constitution is NOT the current problem with this country . . .
 
I think the Constitution is basically timeless. Sure, there have been amendments, but in general those seem to be more in the form of clarification and augmentation than outright change.
 
Esquilinho said:
BTW, just a tiny OFF-TOPIC: how can a country be governed by a Constitution that is over 200 years old??? I mean, people change, the society changes, the world changes, it makes no sense to keep the same constitution after all this time!
Click to expand...

The constitution is a very dynamic document. It allows for change, yet sets the foundation for a balanced government (in theory). Plus, I think most of us would agree that we would not want the current administration re-writing the constitution.
 
Coming at this issue from a slightly different angle, isn't this all about proportionality?

Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin killed an awful lot of people, up to one billion collectively depending on your historical sources.

Saddam only managed 3,000,000 and Bush & Blair have managed a meagre 650,000 in Iraq to date, albeit with the generous help of some Arab desperados.

Yet, it all boils down to an ambition of some sort. Hitler wanted a technically advanced New World Order (populated exclusively by Causcasians).

Stalin wanted something similar, but with a stronger Slavic flavour.

Bush wants massive pay outs for WASPs at all costs, and Blair wants to be seen as a Churchillian giant (no hope buddy).

So what is the choice? Two really serious total feckin' psychos (Hitler & Stalin) or two hopelessly deluded dimbats (Bush & Blair)?

Fryke; any alternatives?
 
The Bush Administration is more like the middle Roman Empire period, right before the era of debauchery and destruction. Get ready for the colusseum where they will have fights to the death...George W. would do well to read Sun Tzu "The Art of War". From a military/strategic perspective, we're doing EVERYTHING wrong: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4884/

Go here to fight the Bush Administration in the most direct, legal way possible:
http://www.democrats.org/

Use your vote and don't mess around with those hanging chads.
 
This sums it up for me: "The consummate leader cultivates the moral law, and strictly adheres to method and discipline; thus it is in his power to control success." -- Sun Tzu
 
Rhisiart: I wouldn't want to directly compare Bush to Hitler or Stalin. What I'm worried about is that the Bush administration takes the USA into a similar direction Hitler did Germany. I'm not talking about WWII, I'm talking about the beginning of his "career", rather. Making fun of democracy. Taking away personal freedom. You know. bbloke's quote of Goering is just too close: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

I think more people should read "The Wave", "1984" and "Fahrenheit 451" again. And again.
 
fryke said:
Rhisiart: I wouldn't want to directly compare Bush to Hitler or Stalin. …
Click to expand...

Neither would I. Those two were intelligent (if evil/misdirected) whereas Bush and Blair are like two kids who have managed to pinch the keys for their dads' tanks!
 
fryke said:
Making fun of democracy. Taking away personal freedom. You know. bbloke's quote of Goering is just too close: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

I think more people should read "The Wave", "1984" and "Fahrenheit 451" again. And again.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, fryke. There are some unnerving parallels at times, when looking at the Bush administration's tactics. Increased emergency powers, disappearances, detention without trial, restriction of freedoms, trying to instill fear in the public, convincing citizens of a dangerous enemy and that they need to go to war for a long period, etc. Goering's quote seems disturbingly relevant to the current situation, and he has first hand experience of manipulating a population.

By the way, last night on British TV there was the movie "Death of a President." It was worryingly convincing, in terms of being a fake documentary about the assasination of George Bush. It is well worth seeing, as it was very well made and highlighted all sorts of issues and potential scenarios. (In case this could be in any way grossly misinterpreted, I should make it very clear here I am only referring to the documentary itself being well done, and I am in absolutely no way whatsoever advocating anyone even consider such actions themselves!) Is it true this movie is banned in the USA? YouTube has a few clips and trailers.
 
i've not seen any mention of the intitial articles subject matter on any of the major news sites. has this happened?
 
Part of the present problem in US politics is that the opposition party stinks.

What I took from the last presidential debates was that Kerry's campaign slogan was, "I'm not Bush." The few points that stuck out as not being anti-Bush were not so hot -- such as his protectionist economic stance and one-on-one talks with North Korea.

Gore, Kerry, and (God forbid) Hillary Clinton are not the best candidates to run in the general election, but they are presently what comes from the Democratic party.

Compare these three to Bill Clinton. President Clinton was a centrist who worked to build consensus when possible. He would compromise when necessary to bring his policies toward what the voters (whom he represented) supported. He was (is) a great politician.

Actually, both Bush and Clinton are excellent politicians. They are also OK presidents (not the best but also not the worst). The brainless mobs that go around chanting slogans and carrying placards announcing, "I hate Clinton" or "I hate Bush" should perhaps shut-up and look around. They would realize that what makes these two successful is that they play to the center -- Bush placates the far right just as Clinton did the fringe left, but these folks were not the primary audience.

Anyway, that's just my two cents worth as a card carrying member of the American moderate majority. I don't expect any one to listen to this, but that's OK -- I and the rest of my cohorts will be at the polls in November electing the candidate that is best (or least bad if you prefer).

SB


P.S. Yes, I'm sick of hearing people talk about being embarassed by the president etc. etc. etc. I listened to this nonsense during the Clinton years and again now. Anyone with a "Not my president" or "Don't blame me I voted for XYZ" bumper sticker needs to grow up and realize what it means to live within a civil society. We have this process called an election... and the person to win... they are YOUR elected official. If you don't like it, then you should perhaps remove yourself from the process -- if not for your sake, then for the rest of us (pretty please).
 
spb: You're calling both Clinton and Bush "good politicians" and "ok presidents" based on how they get their votes both on each's own side plus the center. I think you mix up "successful" and "good" here. Bush may (or may not...) have gathered enough votes in both elections to his presidencies, but _that_ surely doesn't qualify him as an "ok" president. If you carefully look at what he's "achieved" so far, I'd say the outlook's pretty bleak, no? I mean: What positive did this president bring to the USA? One thing he truly, truly managed was to cripple the USA's image all over the world. That's what I, outside of the USA, can clearly see. (And there are two main characters who are actually doing a good job in restoring some faith in the American greatness. Those are Bill Clinton and Al Gore.)
But from what I hear, it's not as if George W. Bush's done a very good job _inside_ the USA, either. And - and this is what this thread is about - some of the changes he's doing right now should ring some definite bells and turn some heads _inside_ the USA. Before it's too late.
 
fryke said:
But from what I hear, it's not as if George W. Bush's done a very good job _inside_ the USA, either. And - and this is what this thread is about - some of the changes he's doing right now should ring some definite bells and turn some heads _inside_ the USA. Before it's too late.
Click to expand...
There's only one phrase which applies.

“Miserable Failure” Google it.

And I was not very political until 'lil georgie came along and started smashing things up.
 
Hi spb,

I hope you wouldn't feel people here would not listen to what you say, I'm sure that is not the case.

I think there are several relevant points here. As fryke says, I think the idea of what makes someone a "good" President is very subjective. The reality is that George W. Bush really has done and awful lot of damage when it comes to foreign relations. A related issue is that many are disturbed by a "my leader right or wrong" or "my country right or wrong" approach, regardless of which leader or country it involves. From my experiences, people in western Europe tend to be very suspicious of authority and will frequently criticize their own leaders. So, this sort of talk won't be seen as an attack on the people or nation in question, only the leader (perhaps, in the US, hearing anti-Bush sentiments can be seen more like an attack on the whole country?). I'm sure that some of Europe's past has a lot to do with this attitude of not trusting authority!

Whether it is a fair representation or a skewed version of events, a lot of non-Americans see evidence of many Americans (in conversation, online, in the news, or whatever) going along with the Bush administration and not questioning it very much. They hear people talk of "being at war," giving up freedoms to combat terror, advocating torture under certain circumstances, "getting behind the President" (in a "stop complaining" kind of way), "fighting evil," and so on. These sorts of things can really cause alarm bells to go off, and that is why many will take issue and say something.

One example is that someone I know moved over to the UK, away from the US. Their son was in high school and questioned US military action in Afghanistan and Iraq. They were not against the US itself in any way, just questioning some of the current foreign policy. The son then had a very hard time at school, both from teachers and students, and was treated virtually like a traitor. When people hear those in the US talk of America representing freedom, then this sort of story doesn't sit well; surely the population questions their leaders and tolerates freedom of speech, or they do not accept freedom of speech and cannot make bold statements that the rest of the world should follow their example.

Don't worry, I'm genuinely not making any claims myself about one nation being better than another. After all, when I talk about Europe learning from experience, for example, it is because European nations have had some dark histories themselves! ;)
 
Again... I once said: Who said FIRST..." You are with us or against us?" 100% Fascist thinking of course.
But GWB is in good hands with the Creationists and the "fear factor" put into the heads of DEEP America. And so forth. Tony the phoney kissed his ass all the way.
By the way, have you noticed that everybody (in Europe) who has shaken hands with GWB have been kicked out of office. Almost. Sarkozy (future candidate for president in France) thinks he made a good public gesture when he did that a couple of months ago at the White House. Poor sot.
No need to panic, yet. I just hope there will be a bit of a stopper in the mid-elections very soon. In any case we are screwed with Iraq due to "ugly" thinking and stupid planning buy Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, and the rest of the gangsters. Everybody knows that now, in terms of Iraq,etc.. The handwriting was on the walls years ago. Don't listen to the "I told you so folks" like me for you who doubt still....just check the facts (not CNN, etc.) and the real situation as things stand at the present moment.
You should see their under-the belt- political campaign at present.
I'm tired of always saying the same thing since the election of GWB in Florida.
I'm going on....sorry.
 
fryke said:
spb: You're calling both Clinton and Bush "good politicians" and "ok presidents" based on how they get their votes both on each's own side plus the center. I think you mix up "successful" and "good" here.
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing what it means to be a politician and what it means to be a president. Politicians build popular support to gain power. Two term presidents are generally "good" politicians. Considering that Bush won re-election while having a relatively low approval rating suggests that he is either an excellent politician or Kerry is a terrible politician -- which brings me back to my original point that the Democratic party (presently) is awful. It seem to be unable to gain centrist support.

Consider the Senate race in Connecticut. Lamont beat Lieberman in the Democratic primaries by several percent. Lieberman left the Democratic party to be come an Independent and is running in the general election. Presently in the polls Lieberman leads Lamont by 15% !! If you look at Lieberman's voting record he is generally left of center (about where Clinton was). The problem is that the Democratic party is selecting candidates that aren't electable in the general election.

Kerry's campaign platform was, "I am not G.W. Bush." It was apparent in his speeches and in the debates. This is awful! You can't (or shouldn't) win an election based on this. The Democratic party needs to figure out how to win elections and following people such as Clinton and Lieberman would be a good place to start.

fryke said:
Bush may (or may not...) have gathered enough votes in both elections to his presidencies, but _that_ surely doesn't qualify him as an "ok" president.
Click to expand...

Good Heavens!!! I think I saw this on a bumper sticker somewhere. :7) And no, it doesn't. It makes him a good politician.

fryke said:
If you carefully look at what he's "achieved" so far, I'd say the outlook's pretty bleak, no? I mean: What positive did this president bring to the USA? One thing he truly, truly managed was to cripple the USA's image all over the world. That's what I, outside of the USA, can clearly see.
Click to expand...

This has been a tough time to be president. I have a hard time imagining how it would have been different with Gore. Possibly the wouldn't have been a 9/11 attack because Gore could garner exterior support better than Bush.

From what I saw in Europe in 2002 I can't say that the US image was too hot to begin with. There were still people in Denmark protesting the US involvement in Vietnam and a museum display opposing the US escalation of the cold war with the USSR.

The Afghanistan war was unavoidable and I believe that any war would be opposed by Europe, unless there were a payoff. The most vocal opposition of the Iraq war were making the most money in the Oil-For-Food scandal -- except Germany, but Schroder keep power for 2 years based on opposition to the US. By the way Schroder lost to a conservative party.... Sarkozy is running for President of France.... which way _does_ the wind blow in Europe these days? :7)

fryke said:
(And there are two main characters who are actually doing a good job in restoring some faith in the American greatness. Those are Bill Clinton and Al Gore.)
Click to expand...

These are both great politicians.

During Clinton's second term, former Democratic Senator Bob Kerry said that Bill Clinton was a good liar. When asked to elaborate he said, that all politicians lie, but that Clinton does it well. At the time, I said to my wife, that I didn't understand why the conservative fringe hated Clinton for lying, since for every one lie he told to the US population he told three to Europe and two to Asia, and was generally good for the US.

Of course they didn't hate him for lying, that was the excuse -- anything he did they would hate, just as the liberal fringe hates everything about Bush. The political extremes are two side of the same coin.

fryke said:
But from what I hear, it's not as if George W. Bush's done a very good job _inside_ the USA, either. And - and this is what this thread is about - some of the changes he's doing right now should ring some definite bells and turn some heads _inside_ the USA.
Click to expand...

I didn't write he was "very good" I wrote "OK". We've had worse and had better. He hasn't screwed with things too much -- there are always small changes.

The Supreme Court appointments were not bad -- he was criticized by the religious right for picking judges that are politically moderate. They are more-or-less "originalists" but the philosophy of constitutional interpretation has been debated in the US for 200 years.

The economy always swings back and forth, but he's not really affected this (any more than Clinton did).

In general its all OK here.

fryke said:
Before it's too late.
Click to expand...

Very ominous. And I though that Bush was the demagog. :7)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top