Why George Bush is a great man & a very good President
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, June 13, 2008 02:56
VIEWED: 16263
PAGE 6 of 18
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Bush is a terrorist and the US is a fascist state. This is the so-called “Middle Ground.”
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Um...isn't that the choices they offer when people question the Iraq War? You either commit the stupidest foreign policy blunder in American history or you do nothing?
So, no, I don't think they see a middle ground.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
Wow, you managed to evade the qestion and prove my point in one feel swoop. Nice. Thanks.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As an observation.
In the UK the nicest depiction we have of the "Prime Minister" on TV is a somewhat image obscessed, out of his depth functionary. After that we go downwards through various shades of idiot to the genuinely corrupt and possibly loopy.
In the US the President in TV and film is played by folks like Harrison Ford and Martin Sheen, leads fighter jets against alien invaders, is perfectly capable of thoughtfully dealing with giant asteroids or terrorists on his plane and has Jack Bauer on his speed dial.
We are seldom disappointed in what we get because our popular culture doesnt make the PM out to be that great. In the US anything less than a President Bartlett is considered a failure.
Ok, so this one is especially poor, but has any President since Kennedy REALLY lived up to the American public's perception of the office? I mean even Reagan had to fall back on being the "nice guy" rather than the uber stateman US popular culture expects.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Finn, see, has a problem with questions. It's akin to a learning disability so don't be too hard on him. The question mark just creates such an uncomfortable feeling that he avoids them whenever possible, which is why you must talk to him in simple declarative sentences.
Wow, you managed to evade the qestion and prove my point
(EH! I slapped myself upside the head for that one, but I couldn't resist!)
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Interesting point. In fact, even Kennedy didn't live up to his reputation, and all of our most effective Presidents were hated violently at some point or another in their terms of office. So we (collectively) perhaps need to scale back our expectations and not expect an Olympian-style hero (no, not THAT Hero) to pull our bacon out of the many fires that we would rather collectively ignore.
In the UK the nicest depiction we have of the "Prime Minister" on TV is a somewhat image obscessed, out of his depth functionary. After that we go downwards through various shades of idiot to the genuinely corrupt and possibly loopy.
In the US the President in TV and film is played by folks like Harrison Ford and Martin Sheen, leads fighter jets against alien invaders, is perfectly capable of thoughtfully dealing with giant asteroids or terrorists on his plane and has Jack Bauer on his speed dial.
We are seldom disappointed in what we get because our popular culture doesnt make the PM out to be that great. In the US anything less than a President Bartlett is considered a failure.
Ok, so this one is especially poor, but has any President since Kennedy REALLY lived up to the American public's perception of the office? I mean even Reagan had to fall back on being the "nice guy" rather than the uber stateman US popular culture expects.
Me, I'd settle for a guy who doesn't sell us down the river at the first opportunity* and start dubious military missions throughout the world. (*That was my beef with Clinton and NAFTA.) If a President doesn't do great good, I hope s/he would at least avoid great evil.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Great post, Fletch! But I guess the question is, why can't Ford or Sheen run for the office?
Originally posted by Fletch2:
In the US the President in TV and film is played by folks like Harrison Ford and Martin Sheen
isall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think Kennedy is important for another reason. he's generally considered the first President for whom TV was a big deal. The TV debate with Nixon is seen by many as having won him that tight election, it didnt hurt that he was young and photogenic.
He also comes around at the time that TV drama was taking off and depictions of the fictional President were just beginning. Ignoring biopics and historical movies I can't remember seeing any cinematic depiction of the US President before the 1950's? Once you have TV having to fill so many hours every week the depiction of the President as a fictional character increases.
It's hard to beat those perfect president.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You’re welcome. It’s always a pleasure to prove someone wrong, and have them thank me for it.
Originally posted by Storymark:
Wow, you managed to evade the qestion and prove my point in one feel swoop. Nice. Thanks.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
He's the president we can drink a beer with.
However, (last call!) he needs to go home now, and we need to sober up.
--WhoDied
_______________________
Evil. Good. These are moral absolutes that predate the
absolution of malt and fine hops. You see, wait-- where was I?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Well, I don't believe he got the full breifing on the whole situation right there in the classroom, so I'd say step one would be get off his ass and make sure he was aware of all available information.
So you do not have a problem with what Bush did, you have a problem with when Bush did it. If Bush had immediately run from the classroom and hid in his limo for half an hour, then you would be okay with his actions? There would be no tape of Bush in the classroom then. And when it comes down to it, we are speaking of optics here, nothing more.
Christ, do you even read before responding? Or are you just incapable of anything but a straw-man response?
Perhaps I was not as clear in making my point as I could have been. Let's ask for clarification first before going off "half-cocked" all the time shall we.
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
No, I wouldn't want him to go "hide in his limo", I would have liked for him to get involved. If that entailed getting a breifing in his limo - so bit it. But sitting on his ass is not the action of a leader.
Say Bush had of been on the toilet when he got the news instead of in the classroom. Say Bush sat and did nothing for half an hour (well almost nothing
) until he came out for his briefing. You would have no issue with how Bush handled himself that day because you would have no tape showing the man doing something you find 'un-presidential'.I'm not saying do not hate Bush, I'm saying why hate Bush for something as trivial as not responding to a catastrophe in the way You think he should have.
By the way,
Storymark secretly loves Bush and all he stands for but decided to follow the majority of Bush haters on this forum because of a lemming like personality derived from his shockingly low self esteem.
Now that's a strawman argument.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Well, I don't believe he got the full breifing on the whole situation right there in the classroom, so I'd say step one would be get off his ass and make sure he was aware of all available information.
So you do not have a problem with what Bush did, you have a problem with when Bush did it. If Bush had immediately run from the classroom and hid in his limo for half an hour, then you would be okay with his actions? There would be no tape of Bush in the classroom then. And when it comes down to it, we are speaking of optics here, nothing more.
Christ, do you even read before responding? Or are you just incapable of anything but a straw-man response?
Perhaps I was not as clear in making my point as I could have been. Let's ask for clarification first before going off "half-cocked" all the time shall we.Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
No, I wouldn't want him to go "hide in his limo", I would have liked for him to get involved. If that entailed getting a breifing in his limo - so bit it. But sitting on his ass is not the action of a leader.
Say Bush had of been on the toilet when he got the news instead of in the classroom. Say Bush sat and did nothing for half an hour (well almost nothing
I'm not saying do not hate Bush, I'm saying why hate Bush for something as trivial as not responding to a catastrophe in the way You think he should have.
By the way,
Storymark secretly loves Bush and all he stands for but decided to follow the majority of Bush haters on this forum because of a lemming like personality derived from his shockingly low self esteem.
Now that's a strawman argument.
Okay, I see your point. But it's not so much a matter of hating him for not doing what I think he should have (though is are hardly a shortage of reasons to hate him) - but for not doing anything at all. True, if he had not been on camera, I would not know what he had or had not been doing . In which case, I wouldn't be so pissed about his response, beause I simply would not have known (and at this point in history, I didn't hate him - I wasn't a big fan, but I didn't hate the man). But the fact remains, he was on camera, and did nothing. And I do hold him accountable for that. If he's going to freeze up, he should have done it in private, so he could have at least maintained the illusion of being a leader.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME