I don't think he's evil. I just think he's incapable of complex independent thought, incapable of admitting a mistake, even to himself, and worst of all he values loyalty over knowledge. That last trait I mentioned is the one that has been his greatest shortcoming but he is not alone in suffering from it. It seems that many of the neocons suffer the same lapse in values. Time will tell how infectious such thought is on the other side of the isle.
-
Why are..?
-
Originally Posted By: bobaliciousBush lover... Hardly! I'm ready to see him ride off into the sunset.Bob lover...that's what I am!
-
Originally Posted By: OldFolks and worst of all he values loyalty over knowledge. I'm thinking a lot about this. On the surface, it does seem that loyalty is the problem. But I don't think loyalty can ever be a problem. I think the problem comes when loyalty to a friend or a former business partner trumps loyalty to the country you were elected to serve and the folks who voted you into your position. That's a real problem.
-
I've always thought the ultimate problem with Bush is a fundamental lack of intelligence. He truly is a very intellectually deficient person who got into a job that was way beyond his abilities. (see Molly Ivins on his history.) He understands nothing about how the world and its different cultures work.
Regarding loyalty: I think it is mistake to attribute this to him as a major personality trait. Sometimes what appears to be loyalty can be quite something else, as was very much the case with Ronald Reagan who often didn't even recognize some of his own cabinet secretaries. Bush's supposed loyalty has a lot to do with his inability to recognize competence. I don't know, for one example, that his failure to get rid of the disasterous Rumsfeld was due to personal loyalty, as much as his own inability to recognize Rumsfeld's limitless incompetence. I think one has to be comptent oneself to recognize comptence in others. And someone as frankly dumb as Bush is open to manipulation by those around him who are actually persuing their own agendas. (the "neocons")
Also, Damien: I think you were too quick to disregard the comments about Bush being evil. I think the analogy is not unfair. He genuinely does not seem to care about the limitless death and suffering his war has caused. I have heard some people describe him as sociopathic; I'm not sure I'd go quite that far, but I don't find it entirely unreasonable. And it is true that the American public watched all this and did nothing to stop him as was the case with Hitler.
-
#1 - Bush is anything but an intellectual moron. It's a favorite mantra of Democrats and other libs to say he is. And I challenge you to actually check his academic history. I also caution you against looking to Molly Ivins to be an accurate, unbiased source for information on Republicans/conservatives. She hates them and has built a career on it.#2 - It is unfair to refer to Bush as evil. And it is even more unfair to state that has no concern for death and suffering. I know it might help your case to believe that is true, much like it helps your case to believe lies such as "Bush lied kids died..." and "Bush started an illegal war". There are legitimate points you can make in disagreement with Bush, but going to these same moronic, kool-aid drinking extremes doesn't help what rational cases could be made against Bush and the war.#3 - Couldn't resist making the Hitler comparison, could you?
-
Bush is anything but an intellectual moron. So you're saying he's an intellectual? Please.
-
Even though Michael Moore highlighted the most, and nobody denies that he is quite biased, I would still like to know why, after hearing about the devastating attacks on US soil, did he sit in that room continuing to read with the children? I don't believe that the man is a complete moron, but what the hell was he doing just sitting there! Any other person would have excused themselves and taken the slightest interest in what was happening.I think that those moments, above all others, show what kind of president he is. What kind of leader he is. What kind of man he is. He is not fit to lead the world's most powerful nation.
-
This is what I said:"Bush is anything but an intellectual moron."I thought I was pretty clear.
-
Originally Posted By: bobaliciousEven though Michael Moore highlighted the most, and nobody denies that he is quite biased, I would still like to know why, after hearing about the devastating attacks on US soil, did he sit in that room continuing to read with the children? I don't believe that the man is a complete moron, but what the hell was he doing just sitting there! Any other person would have excused themselves and taken the slightest interest in what was happening.I think that those moments, above all others, show what kind of president he is. What kind of leader he is. What kind of man he is. He is not fit to lead the world's most powerful nation. I don't have a bit of problem with the decision he made then. Far from being irresponsible, I thought he showed a great deal of sensitivity and understanding. He was in front of a room full of children. He wanted to appear calm to them. Plus, not even he at that point knew that magnitude of what was happening. What do you think he should have done? What would leaving the room two minutes earlier have accomplished? And how in the hell do you conclude from that scene that he had no interest in what was happening. That is an astounding leap.
-
As the leader of a nation that was under attack (after being informed of two crashes in just a few minutes, there was no doubt of what was happening) it was his responsibility to protect his nation in whatever way he could. Whether leaving the room the moment he heard what was happening would have had any effect on the actual events occurring is obvious, there is nothing he could have done. But he did not know that. He had an obligation to stand up and do his job, to do whatever the hell he could to protect his people, not to keep a few children calm and entertained.The man's reaction was slow, incredibly slow. A good leader would have left that room instantly if only to find out what the hell was going on.
-
Well, next time you're in that situation, let's see what you do.
-
How I'd react is irrelevant. He was elected to react in such a situation but he did not.
-
He did react. Just not in the way you in your infinite, drunken, small dicked, Irish wisdom would have.neener-neener
-
Hey now! We're talking about pricks here, not my penis!
-
oh...sorry...prick...penis...six of one, half a dozen of anotheror, I should say, six of mine, three of yours
-
HAH! what penis?
-
Damien, I'm not going to respond point by point to you except to say that I'll stand by my statement that Bush is far from intelligent. I don't care about his academic grades or what Molly Ivins says. I care about what comes out of his own mouth, his consistently, disasterously mistaken analyses, and the results of his bad decisions.I don't generally have many political discussions with people or care a lot for them. But there is one thing I would say to you, because I've been reading these boards a long time and have read many of your (often very good) posts. I think that you have a ridiculous and frankly insulting tone in the way you discuss politics. I'm sick to death of this constant rhetoric on your part, over and over and over again, about people hating Bush every time his name comes up. And I find these nonsensical allusions like kool aid drinking, etc. to be childish.I would make a darn high bet that you listen to a great deal of talk radio, because your rhetoric sounds so much like those people, with your accusations of hatred, your silly insults and the use of words like "libs" which I've never heard anywhere else. Like them you don't so much discuss issues as you make accusations and attribute motives. I really think you're better than that.
-
I'm sorry you feel that way.And I too am not going to argue point by point or any other way.I'm done with that. Here and elsewhere.I will, however, point out the fact that you my friend have raised condescension and patronization to a new level. And in the same post in which you stretch the boundaries of assumption to their limits. What talent you possess.I'm sorry that you seem to equate conservative with idiot. Many people make that mistake. I must point out that that I don't accuse people here of hatred. It also baffles me that you would accuse me of levying silly insults, making accusations, and attributing motives, while completely ignoring the far greater frequency with which it happens from those who disagree with me. But you don't hear my crying about that, do you?Finally, I do listen to a little bit of talk radio. But my diet includes Air America and NPR. I watch news on television, from a variety of viewpoints. I read Time Magazine. I dare say that my intake of media, as it pertains to politics and such, is a helluva lot more balanced than just about anyone on here.I hope your diatribe against me made you feel a bit better, cause that's about all it could have accomplished.
-
I did go too far Damien, and I'm sorry about that.
And I get your point. You do seem to be a pretty lonely voice on here for your side of things and take some abuse for it. I'll definitely try to be more moderate.
Best of luck. -
I hope by "more moderate" you mean in your tone and not in your view point. I would never want you to do that.I hope you see that my arguments and retorts and such have (for the most part) to do with process and not content. I am very much sick of content when it comes to political and religious arguments. They can't be won by anyone. But I am very much interested in the process by which those discussions are had. In fact, I think that's very important.Nonetheless, I think we're fine now. Thanks.