America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

Well heck, why not? He'll be making a large chunk of that back with his shares in United Defense Industries (makers of the Bradley Tanks). He's basically laundering himself millions. War simply makes sense to old Gorgy boy, he gets oil and he gets millions from his investments… And as for the theory that you can’t tell whose fault it is simply by finding out who profited from it true. But you can find out who didn’t mind it going on either. And if that same person is playing both sides of the fence (person who’s profiting and person responsible for stopping said action, it kind of a conflict of interests)

So if I gave you $200 to cut your leg off you wouldn't mind? I mean, you profited right?

I love the concept that our president is simultaneously the dumbest person on the planet, and an evil business genius who launders money and tricks the American people and leadership of dozens of other countries into thinking invading Iraq and capturing Saddam are good ideas just so that he can grow his business interests.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. Pick one and stick with it:

1) Bush is a moron
2) Bush is an evil genius

 

[niky]

Bush is a political genius. He rode the "Dumb ol' Dubya" platform to power.

It gave him lots more personality and accessibility than his wooden and lifeless opponents.

 

[Danoff]

Bush is a political genius. He rode the "Dumb ol' Dubya" platform to power.

It gave him lots more personality and accessibility than his wooden and lifeless opponents.

So you've chosen the Evil Genius Bush. So when you see him say something stupid or mess up during a press conference, or even if you blame him for things that happen during the war - then you believe it's all an act. That actually Bush is doing these things on purpose and he's simply the best actor ever to have lived. He's playing the role of stupid - and he's got the world fooled.

Is that it? Seriously?

 

[niky]

I didn't say that. I'm just pointing out that it was a stroke of genius to turn a perceived liability into an asset.

Even when people poke fun at you, at least they're paying attention. There's no such thing as bad publicity if it keeps you in the spotlight.

Bush is Bush. I don't like many of his policies, but there are times when he actually does makes sense.

Stupid? Maybe. Stubborn? Definitely.

I don't buy into the "War for Money" thing, either.... take note, I'm the one who said we should spend the extra money and finish off the insurgency once and for all.

 

[Danoff]

I didn't say that. I'm just pointing out that it was a stroke of genius to turn a perceived liability into an asset.

Bush is Bush. I don't like many of his policies, but there are times when he actually does makes sense.

Stupid? Maybe. Stubborn? Definitely.

I don't buy into the "War for Money" thing, either.... take note, I'm the one who said we should spend the extra money and finish off the insurgency once and for all.

I'd call it luck then. Bush is the natural backlash to Clinton. He's the anti-clinton. Bush is straightforward and obvious - he's real. The opposite of mister phoney.

 

[niky]

I'd call it luck then. Bush is the natural backlash to Clinton. He's the anti-clinton. Bush is straightforward and obvious - he's real. The opposite of mister phoney.

Much as I don't like Bush, I'd have to agree with you there. That straightforwardness, though, really doesn't help with diplomatic relations... but at least you always know where he stands. Kinda like Reagan.

But all politicians are about putting on faces. And the outcome of an election is often determined by the face you put on. Clinton was the epitome of the classic politician, a smooth talker, a big smile, good looks and wit. I guess he kind of soured it all with that one stupid mistake (which was actually the last in a long line of mistakes), especially stupid for the way he tried to cover it up. I guess that's probably how GWB got in, partially on the backlash to that, and partially because of his "one-of-the-boys" accessibility.

Plus GWB's a hawk. In times when a population feels threatened by external forces, they're more likely to vote a hawk into power. It's in peacetime when you get more moderate Presidents. There was some genius in riding the "war on terror" thing in the polls, too. That's not a comment on the "war on terror", mind you, just on how it helped him hold the presidency.

 

[Danoff]

Plus GWB's a hawk. In times when a population feels threatened by external forces, they're more likely to vote a hawk into power. It's in peacetime when you get more moderate Presidents. There was some genius in riding the "war on terror" thing in the polls, too. That's not a comment on the "war on terror", mind you, just on how it helped him hold the presidency.

GW was elected during peacetime.

 

[niky]

I'm talking about the second term.

 

[Zardoz]

They've gone nuts at the Lawrence Livermore nuke lab:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/02/lab.defense.ap/

This is what those things do, and the lab is surrounded by houses:

http://vampirebat.com/war/gatlinggun.wmv

Why do they feel they're going to need that kind of firepower? Are they expecting a raid or something? Or is this mostly for intimidation?

 

[a6m5]

1) Bush is a moron
2) Bush is an evil genius

I've always figured him for a classic "figurehead". I think he's probably a moron(for a President of the U.S.A., anyway), but people who tell him what to do are the selection #2, evil geniuses. Muwahahahaha.......

 

[Kylehnat]

1) Bush is a moron

That's my vote.

However, some of the people around him ARE evil geniuses. Pair evil geniuses with morons, and you've got something very very bad on your hands.

 

[a6m5]

That's my vote.

However, some of the people around him ARE evil geniuses. Pair evil geniuses with morons, and you've got something very very bad on your hands.

👍 Post of the week!

 

[Diego440]

Well, GWB's misgivings have been amplified in the last two years of his presidency. This year will be quite hard on him, his defenders will defend him harder with less "weapons", while his detractors will have more tools to attack him with. But usually it's the last two years of every president when he is the most attacked and left alone by his peers.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

1) Bush is a moron
2) 8u5h 15 4n 3v1| 63n1u5

That's some manichean type dilemma there, dan 👍

 

[Zardoz]

The Guardian's view of our antics here in the New World:

Special Report: United States of America

To many citizens of other nations, we must look like a neurotic, drunken, wealthy, heavily-armed, manic-depressive, rampaging elephant who is still sort of likable somehow...

 

[niky]

Hmmm... the one about Mexican workers leaving the farms is weird... strange that they don't get paid enough, even though US farms are among the most heavily subsidized in the world?

Well, GWB's misgivings have been amplified in the last two years of his presidency. This year will be quite hard on him, his defenders will defend him harder with less "weapons", while his detractors will have more tools to attack him with. But usually it's the last two years of every president when he is the most attacked and left alone by his peers.

I though the one over the Supreme Court nomination and the problems with FEMA (and the Bush appointee who ran it) that led to the Katrina relief debacle would kill him politically, but surprisingly, he's still in it. Don't know if the Republicans will survive, but with the action in Iraq still going on, it's a toss up as to what the people will vote next time around. But if Bush can pull off a decisive victory in Iraq (I'm pessimistic, but hopeful), maybe they will.

 

[Diego440]

Of course Republicans will survive... they aren't human! They feel no pain! They can't be reasoned with!

 

[FoolKiller]

Of course Republicans will survive... They can't be reasoned with!

Odd, many Republicans would say the same about Democrats.

You act as if only Republicans are stubborn and determined in their ways while Democrats are open-minded and accepting of new ideas.

 

[Diego440]

You act as if only Republicans are stubborn and determined in their ways while Democrats are open-minded and accepting of new ideas.

dude, I'm kidding... don't get overly excited

 

[FoolKiller]

dude, I'm kidding... don't get overly excited

OK, I just know too many people who say stuff like that and mean it. I hear it from both sides and I feel like I am getting Rush Limbaugh in one ear and Al Franken in the other. It's enough to drive you insane.

I honestly feel that everyone should be able to disagree with the major party they support the most on at least one topic.

 

[niky]

OK, I just know too many people who say stuff like that and mean it. I hear it from both sides and I feel like I am getting Rush Limbaugh in one ear and Al Franken in the other. It's enough to drive you insane.

I honestly feel that everyone should be able to disagree with the major party they support the most on at least one topic.

👍

Or better yet, disagree with both of them completely, and vote for the one they disagree with less.

 

[FoolKiller]

👍

Or better yet, disagree with both of them completely, and vote for the one they disagree with less.

Or you could do what my wife did last time and randomly vote for a third party, not knowing what their issues are.

 

[Danoff]

Or you could do what my wife did last time and randomly vote for a third party, not knowing what their issues are.

Or you could vote for a third party you agree with, knowing what their issues are.

 

[niky]

Or you could vote for a third party you agree with, knowing what their issues are.

Great of course, unless it causes the one party you slightly agree with that actually has a chance of winning to lose. Now I'm confused.

 

[Danoff]

Great of course, unless it causes the one party you slightly agree with that actually has a chance of winning to lose. Now I'm confused.

Who cares if you "slightly" agree with them? That kind of reasoning is the reason we're in this mess in the first place.

 

[niky]

Actually, all elections I've seen/participated in have been a choice of "the lesser of evils". There's never going to be a perfect candidate, thus, you pick the one who looks like he may do a better job, regardless of party association. Unfortunately, people usually vote by party, for sentimental/patriotic/family/etc. reasons.

Problem is, if you've got two or three somewhat good (or not so bad) choices on one side, and only one choice on the other... other side wins. Look up our elections here in the RP, sometime... it's mind-boggling how some people vote given near infinite choices.

 

[Danoff]

Actually, all elections I've seen/participated in have been a choice of "the lesser of evils". There's never going to be a perfect candidate, thus, you pick the one who looks like he may do a better job, regardless of party association. Unfortunately, people usually vote by party, for sentimental/patriotic/family/etc. reasons.

People shouldn't vote for a party for any of those reasons - and if they do they deserve the disfunction they get. People should vote for the candidate that closest represents their views. I'm not saying someone will be perfect.

 

[niky]

Agreed. 👍

 

[a6m5]

I was just watching Nightline on ABC. They asked if anybody thought there will be no more successful terrorist attack in the U.S. for 4 1/2 years after 9/11. I sure didn't and I must say, I'm pretty impressed with the current administration, at least on the counter terrorism. They showed Hillary Clinton bashing Bush for playing the "Terror Card" or something like that, all I could do was roll my eyes. One of the reasons why the 'bad guys'(N. Korea, Iraq) got out of control was because your husband failed to play the stupid "Terror Card". I can just see her as the next President, bending over in front of China and Iran.

Second thing I wanted to mention was Iraq. I still don't think it was a great move, and I still don't condone it, but when Nightline was talking about the Republican's successful prevention of terrorism in the States, I started to think........... Iraq? While the U.S. and its' allies are busy hunting down Al-Qaeda all over the globe, Bin-Laden recently confirmed this(via tape or something), but the terrorists got their dirty hands full in Iraq. I know Bush said many times about how the U.S. is taking the war to them, instead of terrorists bringin the war to America. I guess I just thought it was Bush's BS until Nightline just mentioned about the 4 1/2 years(yeah, I'm little slow).

I still don't want to give the U.S. a pat on the back for the invasion of Iraq, because well, for all the 'Anti-Iraq' reasons you've heard before. However, I do see the game plan now. I now do understand(or believe the President) why the U.S. decided to invade Iraq. Not nice, but effective.

P.S. Now that I jinxed the Counter Terrorism, you can expect a major terrorist attack. It's just like when the play-by-play dude mentions some player made 20 consecutive free throws and the player misses one as he said it. Hey, 4 1/2 years ain't bad!

 

[ledhed]

If you want a terrorist that bad have a baby and wait a year .