 sj |
||
|
||
another Dubya new word
|
|
|
Subject: another Dubya new word From: GUEST Date: 06 Apr 02 - 07:11 AM Dubya came up with another last night in a TV interview for Britain Apparantly America is fighting against an "Infatada" |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: kendall Date: 06 Apr 02 - 07:58 AM Ref. another thread, I'm not ashamed to be an American, but, I am ashamed that this doofus is. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DMcG Date: 06 Apr 02 - 08:14 AM What impressed me was that he said the "America is not in the business of picking leaders of other countries" (re Arafat) then a little later in the interview (and surely less than an hour real-time?) that it was US policy that Saddam Hussain should not be leader in Iraq A slight problem with consistancy there? |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: kendall Date: 06 Apr 02 - 08:26 AM It may not be a habit, but we sure aSA HELL HAVE DONE SO. His command of English is only slightly worse than his knowledge of history. Can you say, Pinochet? Thieu? how about Allende? The list is too long to list. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: mack/misophist Date: 06 Apr 02 - 09:52 AM Some one pointed out to me that when George W talks about the oil business or money - things he has a deep personal interest in - he speaks as well as you or I. It's only when he tries to sound presidential that he can't bring it off. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Amos Date: 06 Apr 02 - 10:32 AM Easy to fix! I know someone who works in the oil business -- that's the way he describes it -- and if you press him he tells you he works in the distribution side -- and if you ask a little more closely it turns out to be retail management -- and then finally he allows that what he does is manage a Texaco station on the night shift!! LOL So I am sure I can find W a job for which his talents are more suited and which falls along his real interest line more closely. A |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Lonesome EJ Date: 06 Apr 02 - 12:00 PM George W talks about the oil business or money - things he has a deep personal interest in I thought Bush failed in the oil business? Of course, I'm sure he's still interested in it. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 06 Apr 02 - 05:34 PM Not really, DMcG, post again after Bush has named a successor to Saddam. Anyone who doesn't think Saddam should be replaced is, well, mistaken in my opinion. That doesn't mean the U. S. is going to name a leader to replace him. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 06 Apr 02 - 05:37 PM Oops. I just realized I broke my own rule. I replied to a Guest thread posted to create controversy. Arghhhhh! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Amergin Date: 06 Apr 02 - 05:39 PM gotta love dubya...he is always great for good comedy relief....not much use otherwise though... |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: C-flat Date: 06 Apr 02 - 05:44 PM I heard that George Dubya was entertained recently by Stevie Wonder and tried to attract his attention by WAVING to him? Please, someone tell me otherwise! |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: kendall Date: 06 Apr 02 - 08:30 PM We created Saddam, now, as in the story of Frankenstein, we are regretting it. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Lynn Date: 06 Apr 02 - 08:49 PM C-flat - I heard that story too. Still that doesn't make it true, but... |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Greg F. Date: 06 Apr 02 - 10:32 PM Dumbya may be laughable, but he's hardly comical. Disgusting, scary, inexcusable, perhaps pitiful by turns- but he's NOT funny. Nor is the mess he and the BuShites are making of the U.S. while distracting the vast majority with foreign adventurism. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Rustic Rebel Date: 07 Apr 02 - 01:07 AM I think he's pretty funny-here Rustic |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DMcG Date: 07 Apr 02 - 05:06 AM DougR: You are right of course that there is no inconsistancy in logic between Bush's statements because "not picking leaders" is different to "picking people who should not be leaders". On the other hand, if you do the second often enough, you end up with the first! Also, as kendall pointed out, the US is often prepared to support opposition groups against people they feel should not be leaders. This is, for all practical purposes, picking the next leader whether they are explicitly named or not. It is also my opinion that it would be better for Iraq and for the world if Saddam was not leader. That does not mean I think it is therefore right to actively replace him. I am sure you will agree that such decisions are part of an immensely difficult moral area. Leaving the specifics of Saddam aside, there has to be a point at which we have no choice to but to interfere in another country - essentially when 'we' judge they are too great a threat to 'us'. I don't think many people would feel WWII was morally unjustified, for example. Equally, there are ways other countries can disadvantage us when we both agree it would be wrong to interfere. In between is a vast grey area. For my part, while I have many objections to how Saddam is behaving I do not yet feel we have reached the point of interfering. I hope I have managed to keep the tone of this civilised - apologies if I haven't. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: kendall Date: 07 Apr 02 - 07:34 AM What about all this noise about moving the head terrorist to another country where torture is accepted? If this is done, no doubt they will find out what they have in store for us in the form of more incidents such as the WT center. Sure, that will slow them down for a while, but, then what? When we become as bad as they are, who wants to live in such a world? An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth only makes the whole world blind and toothless. (Mohandas Mahatma Ghandi) |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Stilly River Sage Date: 07 Apr 02 - 12:10 PM The U.S. is considered one large glass house by many of those leaders of nations who the U.S. objects to. The trouble is that the glass is a one-way mirror for many North Americans who live between Canada and Mexico, and we can't see ourselves as the world sees us, we only see the reflection that government and commercial interests want us to see. It's important to read news from other nations, to play "what if" concerning the complaints lodged by people we consider despicable (Saddam, for example). I only bring this up (for the contributors to this list I'm probably stating the obvious) because it is my fear that while we overtly claim we want peace and democracy in Iran, Iraq, the Middle East, and elsewhere, our governmental representatives and corporate culture are covertly working against those desires. DougR, I don't think you can accuse this Guest of trolling, so don't worry about contributing to the discussion. It is something we would discuss among ourselves, introduced from the same humourous standpoint. SRS
|
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: GUEST Date: 07 Apr 02 - 12:42 PM Here is this from the transcript of yesterday's Bush/Blair press conference down there in Crawford: "QUESTION: Prime Minister, we've heard the president say what his policy is directly about Saddam Hussein, which is to remove him. That is the policy of the American administration. Could I ask you whether that is now the policy of the British government? And could I ask you both, if it is now your policy to target Saddam Hussein, what has happened to the doctrine of not targeting heads of state and leaving countries to decide who their leaders should be, which is one of the principles which applied during the Gulf War?
BUSH: Maybe I should be a little less direct and be a little more nuanced and say we support regime change. "
|
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: GUEST,Truthtoller Date: 08 Apr 02 - 03:56 AM You boys would know. Does the 'W' stand for wanker?? T.T. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Dani Date: 08 Apr 02 - 10:31 AM I read that the former (president? I forget his title) of Iran said about America, "You have to be afraid of a dinosaur with the brain of a sparrow." Dani |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: SharonA Date: 08 Apr 02 - 11:03 AM I have to confess that I sometimes dyslexically read "intifada" as "infitada". I'd thought it was just me, and it doesn't comfort me in the least to read that Dumbya does it, too. But I looked up "infitada" on www.google.com to find that plenty of news organizations are misspelling it as well (not just American ones, either!). Perhaps Bush is simply reading the wrong news releases! What irritates me more is that he sometimes says "nucular" as Jimmy Carter did, in addition to other slaughterings of his native language (like "more worser"). In fact, maybe the "W" stands for "worser". |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 08 Apr 02 - 12:34 PM DMcD: Looks civilized to me. Kendall: Taking the terrorist to a country that allows torture has already been rejected by the U. S. Others: I agree that it would be desirable for our president to speak flawless English, and to be able to communicate as well verbally as could Reagan, Roosevelt, or Clinton. As I learned from a visit to a nearby nudist resort last fall, however, all men are not created equal. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 08 Apr 02 - 12:36 PM DMcD: Looks civilized to me. Kendall: Taking the terrorist to a country that allows torture has already been rejected by the U. S. Others: I agree that it would be desirable for our president to speak flawless English, and to be able to communicate as well verbally as could Reagan, Roosevelt, or Clinton. As I learned from a visit to a nearby nudist resort last fall, however, all men are not created equal. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Apr 02 - 02:38 PM This verbal mindrot thing is catching. Tony Blair is normally pretty articulate, but I see that on his visit to Bush he's just been quoted as talking about the need not to be too "precipitative" in going to war. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: GUEST,Nerd Date: 08 Apr 02 - 02:59 PM DougR: If there's one thing Bush fears more than Saddam Hussein, it's removing Saddam Hussein and NOT controlling who then becomes the owner of Iraq's chemical, biological and (maybe) nuclear weapons. Rest assured that if he were to remove Saddam he would have a hand-picked replacement to prevent these assets going to Saddam's sons or to other warlords. Smart from a security standpoint? Yes. Consistent with his stated policies? No. "Moral?" Who can say? But as many have said, it's a complex issue! |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: GUEST,Amy Date: 08 Apr 02 - 03:58 PM Bush Wave |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: GUEST,Just Amy (no the same as Amy above) Date: 08 Apr 02 - 04:33 PM This man is the President and he was elected to office so what does that say about the American public. The thing that irritates me is that the Democrates are just falling in line with his policies. What is going on here? |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: GUEST,Amy Date: 08 Apr 02 - 04:49 PM The American public doesn't have time/energy to investigate political candidates. They're too busy providing the labor to keep the Machine running. Why should they bother? No matter who they vote for will screw them over in the end. All I'm worried about now is how I'm gonna scrape together the $300 to pay back the 'tax cut' I got last year. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Apr 02 - 07:23 PM "Elected" in the essentially same sense as President Mugabe of Zimbabwe. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 08 Apr 02 - 07:44 PM That's an old saw, McGrath. He was elected. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Tweed Date: 08 Apr 02 - 08:35 PM If it could ever be proven that the election was rigged down here in balmy south Florida, what would happen? What should happen? It's too late to do anything now ain't it? Also, DougR, it sounds like you're starting to wonder about this president a little more than before. Rush Limbaugh even so much as said today that Bush seemed inconsistant lately....weird....more signs of the apocalypse.... |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Genie Date: 09 Apr 02 - 01:47 PM I'll have a cheese infatada with a side of guacamole. ---- Or is "infatada" the latest dance craze, after the macarena and the lambada? Genie |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: GUEST,Amy Date: 09 Apr 02 - 02:52 PM I have a tendency to do this too, speak weirdly that is. I get it from my dad. The words sound fine in my head but when they come out it gets scrambled. For example I just typed 'find' for 'fine'. I'd would probably come out of my mouth that way too. I know it's wrong, and I hate myself for it, but I've been unable to change it in my 27 years. This tendency is most prevalent when I speak, which is one reason I've very, very quiet. Unfortunately people have a tendency to make fun of those whose words come out incorrectly, even if it's just a gentle mocking. I'm not a stupid person (at least I don't think so) but those who listen to me might think me rather thick. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: GUEST Date: 09 Apr 02 - 02:54 PM Guest Just Amy, What is going on here is there is no difference between donkeys and elephants, so you should vote green instead! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Stilly River Sage Date: 09 Apr 02 - 04:14 PM Tongue-tied Amy, it sounds like a form of dyslexia you're dealing with. I went through therapy for dyslexia during the period around sixth grade, and while it helped with some of my reading problems, it built in little encapsulated bits of words (prefixes and suffixes mostly) that sometimes plop themselves down in places where I didn't intend to write them. And since often the resulting words are proper words, even if they aren't the ones I intended, the computer's spelling check is no help. I sometimes have difficulty getting the accent on the right syllable when pronouncing words if I am having difficulty visualizing the spelling of the word at the same time. It's like the dyslexia therapy hard-wired in a detour through a visual filter for the spoken word as well as the written word. Now what is George Dubya's excuse? I don't think anyone has accused him of being overly bright, and high intelligence is one aspect of dyslexia. (And No, DougR, he wasn't elected, he was appointed by the Reagan Supremes). SRS |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: GUEST,Amy Date: 09 Apr 02 - 04:35 PM Stilly, I thought dyslexia had more to do with reading words incorrectly than speaking...I guess there are different forms. I am agonizing over all the mistakes I made in my last post. I don't generally have trouble with spelling at all, have won spelling bees in the past. And I think my vocabulary is decent. Just when it tumbles out of my mouth is where the problem starts. And usually my writing is not this bad, I think the fact that I'm doing it on the fly doesn't help. As far as the president goes, I am willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. Truthfully though I find it hard to listen to him, he seems rather too vitriolic of late. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Bobert Date: 09 Apr 02 - 05:40 PM To various GUESTS, Amy, Other Amy,etc.: First of all Bush was not elected, but selected by a 5 Supreme Court Justices who had been appointed by his party. He was the first to bring in the heavies (lawyers), the first to bring in hired "goon sqads" to harrass polling officilas and the first to file a suit in the Federal Court to stop the recounts. Those are facts and they fairly well implicate Bush and his sponsors in this deal. Second, those who are disappointed by the Democrats voting for Bush's proposals need look no further than who their bosses are. Yep, same folks who own the Repulicans and Bush. There is no two party system. Think Green, support Green and vote Green. Restore democracy and integrity to America. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Lanfranc Date: 09 Apr 02 - 06:47 PM Could I please wake up in the alternative universe where the "West Wing" is true, and the current White House regime the cast of a sitcom? "They won't give peace a chance, that was just a dream some of us had." (Joni Mitchell "California") Alan |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 09 Apr 02 - 07:03 PM Tweed: I don't agree with all of GWB's views. I still support him though. SRS: Dream on. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Genie Date: 10 Apr 02 - 12:26 AM Stilly and Amy, It's aphasia not dyslexia. In Dubya's case, though, it's not just aphasia [or creative verbal memory]. He sometimes says whole sentences that are Quayle-esque in their absurdity or nonsensicality. And lots of shortcomings are a lot less noticeable and less important in the average Joe or Jane than in the "leader of the free world." Genie |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: kendall Date: 10 Apr 02 - 10:40 AM Oh yeah? so he was selected by the supreme court; that doesn't change the fact that almost half of the voters wanted him in there too! |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: GUEST,Amy Date: 10 Apr 02 - 11:03 AM Give the power back to the states, where it belongs. The federal government is out of control anyway. Remember the red/blue map? Different areas of the country want/need different things. How can one man effectively represent all of us? George Washington understood it, why can't the rest of them? |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 10 Apr 02 - 12:01 PM Because, Guest Amy, the federal government does not wish to give up any power, particularly the liberal members of Congress. Don't you know that the federal government knows what's best for all of us? Whassamatta you? After several newspapers, including the major Florida newspapers and (I believe) The New York Times, paid for an independent audit of the votes in Florida, Kendall my friend, Bush still won by a small margin. I repeat what was printed in all the national newspapers and repeated on radio and TV because the news might not have reached your folks in Maine yet. **BG** DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: GUEST Date: 10 Apr 02 - 12:16 PM Right kendall--the people who put GWB in the White House were the people who voted for him, and the Supreme Court. Remember, if God had wanted a Democratic president this term, he'd have given you a candidate. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Stilly River Sage Date: 10 Apr 02 - 01:10 PM Kendall, if "almost half" wanted Dubya, MORE than half didn't want him. That's the beef. Gore's mistake was in not asking for a recount in all of Florida, instead of cherry-picking a few counties. Despite what DougR has stated above, Gore did win a slim margin in the entire state of Florida. Bush isn't a dream, he's a nightmare, only there's no waking from it. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 10 Apr 02 - 01:10 PM McGrath, the Bush succession had judicial endorsement, Mugabe defied his judiciary. Can you spot the difference? The front cover of Private Eye shows the two presidents (OK, so Blair's title has yet to be ratified) standing side by side at their respective podiums. (Podia?) BLAIR: Saddam's out of control. And he's got nuclear weapons. BUSH: What's wrong with that? |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Stilly River Sage Date: 10 Apr 02 - 01:38 PM That would be "lecterns." They stand on podiums. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 10 Apr 02 - 02:58 PM Excuse, SRS, but I don't believe you are correct. The recound showed Bush won by a small margin. If I am in error, please refer me to a credible source to support your view. Thanks. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: GUEST,Just Amy Date: 10 Apr 02 - 03:47 PM Kids, kids, kids. G. W. Bush did not win the popular vote but he won the majority of the Electoral College vote (with the help of the Supremes). I have voted Green if I think the candidate is the best person for the job. Just Amy (because the last name is too hard to spell and pronouce) |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: kendall Date: 10 Apr 02 - 03:47 PM A credible source Doug? FOX??? Why do the Liberals want a strong central government? to prevent things like this; A few years ago, a high school principal in South Carolina announced that anyone coming to the senior prom with someone of anoth race would cause him to cancel the prom. Another? when I was in Florida a few years ago, it was on the national news that Mississippi finally got around to abolishing slavery! What the federal government does is make sure we are all treated equally in matters of human rights. Can you imagine what a hell of a mess it would be if the states had no central government to rein them in? Doug, you probably remember when the states printed their own money! As Ronald Ray gun said, "Let's get the government off our backs" (and into our bedrooms where it belongs.) Why do we need a Senate? to give all states an equal voice in Washington; otherwise, the large population states would trample the small ones. , and, that's exactly why we need a strong central government. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: GUEST,#6(b) Date: 10 Apr 02 - 03:59 PM You folks are forgetting something, the implications of which were difficult to grasp even at the time. Statistically speaking (read: "margin of error"), the Florida vote was a TIE. The subsequent studies ony highlight the issue. Our system has no means of resolving a statistical tie -- and it still doesn't. We are trying to resolve it by more accurate machines, but they will still have a margin of error, and we still have no constitutional mechanism to handle a freak occurrence like this. The good news was the freak occurrence happened when we were collectively choosing between mayonnaise and Miracle Whip; Lord help us if it should happen in a more polarized election. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: GUEST,Amy Date: 10 Apr 02 - 04:11 PM What the federal government does is make sure we are all treated equally in matters of human rights. ...but we aren't... |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Herga Kitty Date: 10 Apr 02 - 05:38 PM Well, it's quite interesting to read this from the other side of the Atlantic, because the USA is a superpower making decisions affecting the rest of the world in which we get no vote at all. Also because the separation of powers in the USA means that you can have a president who has never served in Congress, whereas we've only had one Prime Minister in the last 40 years who wasn't an elected member of Parliament but a member of the House of Lords (and that only thanks to an error by our gracious Queen which is documented on a separate thread about UK republicanism). But we still don't get a Government elected by the majority of voters because we have a first past the post system not proportional representation. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 10 Apr 02 - 10:36 PM Herga Kitty: In my opinion, serving in either our Senate, or our House of Representatives, provides one with more qualifications to be President than serving as a deliverer of doughnuts does. Things don't work that way in the U. S. It does take a lot of money to be elected to almost any office, but serving as a Senator or Representative does not, in itself, endow one with any superior knowledge about governing. The governor of one of one of our most progressive states is a former wrestler. Kendall: Did you take your baby aspirin this morning? I have no idea where you are coming from in your post of 3:47 P.M. April 10. Guest Just Amy has it right. Gore won the popular vote. Big deal. GWB has enjoyed 80% favorable ratings as President longer than any President in memory, my fine liberal friends are fond of saying that that means nothing! When the election for president is discussed, however, the "Popular Vote" becomes paramount. Consistency? What is that? With my liberal friends, it evidently doesn't exist. GWB won the Electorial College vote and that is the way we elect presidents in the United States. You knew that didn't you, Kendall? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Bobert Date: 11 Apr 02 - 03:26 PM DougR: Junior's ratings, when they begin to fall, will make the 1929 stock market look like a baloon. And fall they will unless he gets some CIA folks to volunteer to be suicde bombers in a few of the local malls. He messed up his future by probably accidently killing his best buddy, bin Laden. Yeah, take away Sept. 11 and Junior would be lookin' at 20% ratings now rather than having to wait. Like daddy, like son. But it's always good to hear from you, Doug. Stilly River Sage: Nope, Gore's biggest mistake was not offering the American voter any alternatives. He tended to agree with almost everything Junior said and vice versa. His second biggest mistake was not having the nasty streak the Rupublicans seem to be born with. He was beaten in court and on the street corners by the "paid" goons that Bush hired to harass poll workers and just about everyone else. And who ever said "liberal congressmen", that's an oximoron. No such thing. There are right wing congressmen an not so right wing congressmen. I don't hear anyone standing up speaking to the concerns of the working man or suggesting that the dough the Enron execs should be taken back and divied up among the working folks who lost their retirements and are now going to probably die on a widget assembly line. Yeah, where are all these liberals? Teddy Kennedy? Hah! Think Green...... |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 11 Apr 02 - 06:23 PM Hey, Bobert, you mean Teddy isn't far enough to the left for you? Wow! How about Joe Lieberman? Diane Fienstein, Joe Biden, or I know, Maxine Waters! How about them? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: artbrooks Date: 11 Apr 02 - 06:26 PM In my not particularly humble opinion, Brother Al's biggest mistake was in not resigning when Wild Bill's moral peccadillos became so obvious...he wouldn't have had the baggage to deal with that he did in that case. Someone suggested that the US needs a strong third party?? The problem with that is that third parties are liberal (I HATE that word) spoilers...didn't John Anderson give us Ronald Reagan?...and Ralph Nader certainly gave us George W. If my memory serves, there have been at least two news media recounts in Florida. One looked at the counties that Gore supposedly was going to complain about, and that one's results would still have given the win to Bush. The other looked at the entire state, and would have resulted in a Gore win. In the end, that isn't relevant, since our system says that the Supreme Court decides, and they did, and Gore himself accepted that. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Bobert Date: 11 Apr 02 - 07:23 PM No, Artbrooks. We need a second party. We only have one party now, the Repubocrats. And no, DougR, these folks ain't liberals at all but moderate right wingers who represent the interests of big money. They may give a speech saying they believe in this or that but they don't propose legislation to back up their talk. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Genie Date: 12 Apr 02 - 02:02 AM Doug, You say "...the federal government does not wish to give up any power, particularly the liberal members of Congress." Funny, but I don't think it's a "liberal" administration that is bent on using the powers of the federal government to overturn Oregon's assisted suicide law or the medical marijuana laws enacted in some states. In recent months, in fact, the Republican-controlled federal government seems to be going out of its way to bypass local prosecutors in murder cases in jurisdictions where the voters have rejected the death penalty; if the death penalty is not an option in a state or in Washington DC, because voters have rejected it, the feds want to come in and take over the case so it becomes an option. Local and state voters' preferences be damned. As Kendall points out, the right wing tends to want to"get the government off our backs" (and into our bedrooms [and doctors' offices] where it belongs.) GUEST,#6(b) Very important point, that--about statistical ties. However you slice it, NOBODY had a MANDATE in the 2000 election. I'm tired of the right wing acting as if Dubya has some kind of plebiscite for his agenda, just because he was the "winner" in a statistical tie. [And/or because the nation is rallying behind our President in a time of crisis.] Doug R., Gore's winning the popular vote [plus Nader's winning another 2 or 3% to Buchanan's 1%] is one reason for noting that Bush does not have a mandate. [The other is that, where the electoral college is concerned, Gore was close to what he needed to win without Florida's virtual-tie electoral votes; GWB wasn't. You say "GWB has enjoyed 80% favorable ratings as President longer than any President in memory." I'm not sure what this means. How long have scientifically valid polls been used? How many presidents have we had who were in office when our country was attacked by outsiders? I'm not sure we have any reliable means of comparison. artbrooks, You say "...third parties are liberal spoilers." Hasn't it been argued that Perot gave us Bill Clinton? Genie |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 12 Apr 02 - 12:10 PM He Genie, you're on a roll! The last time I checked, the U. S. Senate is controlled by the Democrats, not the Republicans. The current administration can do little without the support of the congress (read: Senate). Too bad that the Bush administration is opposed to many issues you favor, but that's the way it goes in politics. Had your side one, the issues you refer to might have gone the way you want or wanted them to go. But then, maybe not! Polls have been with us as long as my memory. I'm 72 years old and my memory might not be as good as it use to be, but I'm fairly confident Presidential approval polls go back at least as far as Herbert Hoover, and that's a long time. On one of your other points, I do not recall ever having said that Bush had a mandate. And you refer to Kendall as though he is some kind of authority on something. The only thing I know that he is reported to be an expert in is in the care and feeding of Llamas! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Genie Date: 12 Apr 02 - 09:54 PM Well, Doug, this thread seems to be on a roll. Yes, the U. S. Senate is controlled [by a hair] by the Democrats, but the House isn't. And most of the attempts to override states on issues having to do with assisted suicide, the death penalty, or medical marijuana have come from the Attorney General's office. In some such matters, the administration can act without Congressional approval [e.g., executive order]. I'm not fussing so much because "the the Bush administration is opposed to many issues [I] favor as I am marveling at how the Republicans/right can condemn the Democrats/left for advocating a strong Federal govenment and then turn around and try to impose Federal restrictions on states' rights whenever the states don't agree with their values or politics!
Re polls:you're 72 and the US is 226. Maybe you never said that Bush had a mandate, but I have heard Bush and his various spokespeople [as well as many right-wing talking heads] make statements to the effect that "the American people elected [me/Dubya] so [I'm/he's] going to energetically pursue the policies they elected me to pursue." I don't hear Bush say things like, "Well, there were as many people who voted for my liberal opponents as did for me, so it's only reasonable that I listen to the Democrats as much as to the Republicans and that I pursue centrist policies."
No, I'm not referring to Kendall as "some kind of authority on something." I just think he hit the obvious nail on the head in his description of the right wing's views on the role of government ! Genie §;-) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: kendall Date: 12 Apr 02 - 10:14 PM Hey you guys, leave my friends out of this! Doug, my friend, (and I mean that) the main reason Bush is so popular has already been stated. He needed an enemy, and he got one. Some lucky, right? The other reason is: Bush is spouting jingoisms all over the tube; "We are going to smoke him out "etc etc ad nauseum. This is just what those Americans who dont know or care why we were attacked want to hear. Even if our government gave them equal time on tv to explain why they hate us and why they attacked us, it would do no good; it is too late, and most Americans, 80%, just want to squash them like cockroaches. Bush is telling them what they want to hear. THAT'S why his approval rating is high. Take away the terrorists and all he would have is old Clinton bashing, and trying to duck Enron. Did you notice he didn't mention Enron in his state of the union speech? |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 12 Apr 02 - 11:08 PM Genie: I do believe in States rights, and if the federal government, by legislation, or executive order trample over them, I'd be inclinded to object too. Some things the states can do better, and some things the fed does better. I do favor the laws you site passed by the Oregon legislature. Your argument that Bush enjoys the popularity that he does (and I guess Kendall joins you on this)is a good arguing point, but then, as you point out, we really don't know, do we? It is conceivable that the majority ot the U. S. population does approve of Bush's policies regardless of whether or not it is because of the current warlike situation. The polls will soon show whether or not that is true, I suspect. I wonder, though, if you two are giving the American population short shrift, however. They may not be as gullible as you seem to feel they are. They may be right! In regard to Bush's mandate, I am not sure he is doing what he does because he feels he has a mandate. I think he is doing what he feels is right. Al Gore would have acted (I hope) the same way, and were Al in GWB's place no one could legitimately claim that he had a mandate either. I would hope Al would do as George is doing, and that is do what he feels is right for the country. Al might, or might not do what I personally think is the right thing to do, but I hope he would have become a much more positive leader than (to me) it appeared he would be had he been elected. As to Kendall, Genie, he is an old friend and we have sparred for years over politics. He means well, I'm sure of that, but even he makes mistakes at times. He has openly admitted that he supported Barry Goldwater in 1964. Do you need further evidence? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: artbrooks Date: 13 Apr 02 - 12:26 AM And just to make this into a music thread: We're the bright young men, Who want to go back to 1910, We're Barry's boys. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: kendall Date: 13 Apr 02 - 12:16 PM Doug, you are getting pretty good in the "Zinger" dept.! It's true; I did support Goldwater because I was sure he was at least upright if not totally honest. Johnson, on the other hand, I thought may have had a hand in Kennedy's murder. Turns out my instinct was right about Johnson. He may not have been guilty of the conspiracy, but, he was a morally bankrupt politician. He sent thousands of American boys into a war he KNEW we couldn't win, yet, his ego wouldn't let him admit it. Even Secretary McNamara advised him to pull out, and he ended up resigning because he couldn't take it anymore. Furthermore, my esteemed friend from the great state of Arizona, when one can say, "I was wrong" he can also say, "I know more than I did yesterday." Knowledge is power you know. One of the great things about being a Liberal is, we are not afraid of change; we welcome it. If the republicans had their way, nothing would ever change. We would still be back in the caves trying to invent fire! LOL Doug, I must admit, I do respect your courage; coming into this den of "pinkos" supporting the second dumbest president of all time. You have more guts than a fiddle string factory! (the number ONE dumbo was Harding, also a republican) ROTFLMAO !! |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Apr 02 - 12:54 PM Oh, I love that Bush & Gore dance site!!! I wonder if I can put it on my desktop? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 13 Apr 02 - 07:12 PM I just keep thinking, Kendall, that someday all you Liberals will "see the light!" :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: kendall Date: 13 Apr 02 - 10:10 PM I already did, Doug. That's why I am now a "liberal" A little boy stood by the side of a street near a box. The sign on the box said, "Republican kittens for sale." A neighbor thought it odd, but passed by on his business. A few days later he passed by again, and there was the same little boy with the box of kittens; but, this time the sign said "Democrat kittens for sale". When he asked why the kittens were now democrats, whereas they used to be republicans, the boy said, "They now have their eyes open. |
|
Subject: RE: another Dubya new word From: DougR Date: 13 Apr 02 - 11:31 PM That's funny, Kendall. :>) You getting cool weather up there in Maine? It's hot as hell here in Arizona. It got up to 97 degrees today. DougR |
| Share Thread: |