|
|
On April 30 2012 05:24 Chytilova wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2012 01:47 Wegandi wrote:On April 30 2012 01:02 kwizach wrote:On April 29 2012 14:33 coverpunch wrote:On April 29 2012 14:01 kwizach wrote:
You realize he's not the one passing legislation, right? :p If he does his best to convince Congress to pass a certain policy but they steadily refuse, how is that his fault? That only works for policies in 2011. He had a Democratic majority in Congress in 2009 and 2010 and they still passed very little. Let's be honest, Obama has not been a good president. He started his presidency hoping to be compared to FDR or Lincoln. Now he's just hoping people won't compare him to Carter or Hoover. The important question: can Romney do better? We'll have to see how he does as a politician. The tragedy is that most of the blind rage against the GOP belies the fact that Romney was a productive governor of a heavily Democratic state and was able to compromise on issues that made the state fiscally sound and socially responsible. The current hostile political environment and the brutal Republican primary seems to have given him weak knees - he's turned ashamed of his past successes and he's been forced to suppress most of the qualities that made him a good leader. I would put it this way: the Democrats and Obama deserve to lose. The Republicans do not deserve to win. Romney perhaps doesn't either. There is much less party cohesion in the US than elsewhere. Having a Democratic majority is not synonymous with being able to automatically pass what you want to pass. See for example how he tried to close Guantanamo but failed. Obama has been a very good president - what he probably should have done better is explain to the American people why the right's rhetoric on healthcare, the debt, etc. was bogus. http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/25/in-debt-speech-obama-quotes-reBut as long as we're digging through the history books, it's worth noting that Obama might not always have been on the side he's currently taking in the debt debate. Obama started tonight's speech by noting that another predecessor of his, President George W. Bush, is responsible for a substantial portion of the national debt. This is true. And what did Obama, as Senator, say when Bush wanted to raise the debt limit? Here's ABC News with the relevant quote: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”Sounds pretty good to me. Of course we all know it's partisanship. I remember all the Democrats railing about the debt and deficits under Bush. Of course they didn't give a rats ass, but they knew the average American did because it directly effects them and their future progeny. If you think debt is so great, maybe you should take out 20 credit cards and see how wealthy you become. Get back to me on how that turns out. Something might have happened that would change someone's opinion about national debt issues say around late 2008. Have any idea what it could have been? Or do you think no matter the context someone should always hold the same policy position? In fact Obama, probably at the nudging of conservatives in his administration (he has a ton of economic conservatives in this cabinet even if Republicans don't want to admit it) and media pressure, is too concerned with the debt at the moment. The best thing for a large debt is a strong economy. The answer to a struggling economy is stimulus. The problem at this point is that because conservatives have won the political deficit debate (Obama barely tried to win it) expectations of the public/businesses would be against a stimulus and even though a lot of lay people probably don't know it, expectations plays a HUGE part in policy making with respect to macro economics.
I wouldn't look too far into it. He's just playing politics. You insult the other side when they make hard and controversial decisions, yet you make the same decision when you are in their shoes. Politics 101.
|
On April 30 2012 05:23 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2012 04:54 BluePanther wrote:On April 30 2012 04:40 radiatoren wrote:
Bush did what he wanted and probably because he believed it was best for USA. That's the part I disagree with. He did what AMERICANS wanted. I concede, the Iraq decision may have been a poor one in hindsight. But Americans wanted it, and I think it's unfair to dump all the blame on him. The Democrats voted for it too. I just feel like too much blame is placed directly on him. Even if he vetoed it, there was enough support in congress to override him. Afghanistan Vote: House: 420-1 Ayes, 10 Present Senate: 98-0 Ayes, 2 Present Iraq Vote: House: 296-133 Ayes Senate: 77-23 Ayes That's not your typical partisan vote in America. It's what Americans "wanted" because Bush's administration spent a year convincing them it's what they wanted. Putting the blame on anyone but Bush's shoulders is completely illogical. You also said Bush has made some of the toughest decisions of any President. I strongly doubt if he has had to make any decisions. He couldn't even decide if he should stop reading along with little children while his country was under attack. He didn't make decisions, he waited for people to tell him what to do next.
1. There are 373 Congressional representatives who are to blame --- equally.
2. That's just partisan rhetoric.
|
By the way, saw one of the first republican anti-Obama videos. While I do not like the kindergarten mudthrowing from either side I did find it somewhat interesting. I am pretty sure that it is only the beginning of a far more dirty campaign, but as a stand-alone it is not that bad for Obama. At least the soundside seems very pro-Obama. What do they want with it is the question?
http://www.youtube.com/embed/lhXGkeMdOJs
|
On April 30 2012 06:33 radiatoren wrote:
By the way, saw one of the first republican anti-Obama videos. While I do not like the kindergarten mudthrowing from either side I did find it somewhat interesting. I am pretty sure that it is only the beginning of a far more dirty campaign, but as a stand-alone it is not that bad for Obama. At least the soundside seems very pro-Obama. What do they want with it is the question?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lhXGkeMdOJs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
whoah buddy you messed up the link! all you have to do is grab it from the adress bar. That video doesn't look too bad for obama imo, I don't see how they think portraying obama as clueless about politics after that clown bush was president for 8 years will hit home.....
|
On April 30 2012 06:23 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2012 05:23 BlackJack wrote:On April 30 2012 04:54 BluePanther wrote:On April 30 2012 04:40 radiatoren wrote:
Bush did what he wanted and probably because he believed it was best for USA. That's the part I disagree with. He did what AMERICANS wanted. I concede, the Iraq decision may have been a poor one in hindsight. But Americans wanted it, and I think it's unfair to dump all the blame on him. The Democrats voted for it too. I just feel like too much blame is placed directly on him. Even if he vetoed it, there was enough support in congress to override him. Afghanistan Vote: House: 420-1 Ayes, 10 Present Senate: 98-0 Ayes, 2 Present Iraq Vote: House: 296-133 Ayes Senate: 77-23 Ayes That's not your typical partisan vote in America. It's what Americans "wanted" because Bush's administration spent a year convincing them it's what they wanted. Putting the blame on anyone but Bush's shoulders is completely illogical. You also said Bush has made some of the toughest decisions of any President. I strongly doubt if he has had to make any decisions. He couldn't even decide if he should stop reading along with little children while his country was under attack. He didn't make decisions, he waited for people to tell him what to do next. 1. There are 373 Congressional representatives who are to blame --- equally. 2. That's just partisan rhetoric.
Partisan rhetoric? It's a well-known fact that Bush sat in the classroom for 7 minutes after he learned the country was under attack. As far as I'm concerned that's just a bullshit way to dismiss an opinion different from your own instead of supporting your own opinion.
It's also an undisputed fact that Bush's administration set the agenda on Iraq so I'm not even going to bother arguing that point.
|
On April 30 2012 06:18 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2012 05:24 Chytilova wrote:On April 30 2012 01:47 Wegandi wrote:On April 30 2012 01:02 kwizach wrote:On April 29 2012 14:33 coverpunch wrote:On April 29 2012 14:01 kwizach wrote:
You realize he's not the one passing legislation, right? :p If he does his best to convince Congress to pass a certain policy but they steadily refuse, how is that his fault? That only works for policies in 2011. He had a Democratic majority in Congress in 2009 and 2010 and they still passed very little. Let's be honest, Obama has not been a good president. He started his presidency hoping to be compared to FDR or Lincoln. Now he's just hoping people won't compare him to Carter or Hoover. The important question: can Romney do better? We'll have to see how he does as a politician. The tragedy is that most of the blind rage against the GOP belies the fact that Romney was a productive governor of a heavily Democratic state and was able to compromise on issues that made the state fiscally sound and socially responsible. The current hostile political environment and the brutal Republican primary seems to have given him weak knees - he's turned ashamed of his past successes and he's been forced to suppress most of the qualities that made him a good leader. I would put it this way: the Democrats and Obama deserve to lose. The Republicans do not deserve to win. Romney perhaps doesn't either. There is much less party cohesion in the US than elsewhere. Having a Democratic majority is not synonymous with being able to automatically pass what you want to pass. See for example how he tried to close Guantanamo but failed. Obama has been a very good president - what he probably should have done better is explain to the American people why the right's rhetoric on healthcare, the debt, etc. was bogus. http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/25/in-debt-speech-obama-quotes-reBut as long as we're digging through the history books, it's worth noting that Obama might not always have been on the side he's currently taking in the debt debate. Obama started tonight's speech by noting that another predecessor of his, President George W. Bush, is responsible for a substantial portion of the national debt. This is true. And what did Obama, as Senator, say when Bush wanted to raise the debt limit? Here's ABC News with the relevant quote: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”Sounds pretty good to me. Of course we all know it's partisanship. I remember all the Democrats railing about the debt and deficits under Bush. Of course they didn't give a rats ass, but they knew the average American did because it directly effects them and their future progeny. If you think debt is so great, maybe you should take out 20 credit cards and see how wealthy you become. Get back to me on how that turns out. Something might have happened that would change someone's opinion about national debt issues say around late 2008. Have any idea what it could have been? Or do you think no matter the context someone should always hold the same policy position? In fact Obama, probably at the nudging of conservatives in his administration (he has a ton of economic conservatives in this cabinet even if Republicans don't want to admit it) and media pressure, is too concerned with the debt at the moment. The best thing for a large debt is a strong economy. The answer to a struggling economy is stimulus. The problem at this point is that because conservatives have won the political deficit debate (Obama barely tried to win it) expectations of the public/businesses would be against a stimulus and even though a lot of lay people probably don't know it, expectations plays a HUGE part in policy making with respect to macro economics. I wouldn't look too far into it. He's just playing politics. You insult the other side when they make hard and controversial decisions, yet you make the same decision when you are in their shoes. Politics 101.
It's easy to say that in general, but harder to actually pinpoint issues where that is true. On this point with these circumstances I think that is a little off base.
|
it's pretty remarkable romney is even on the list, let alone 200 of TL americans would vote for him...
|
On April 30 2012 06:42 nttea wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2012 06:33 radiatoren wrote:
By the way, saw one of the first republican anti-Obama videos. While I do not like the kindergarten mudthrowing from either side I did find it somewhat interesting. I am pretty sure that it is only the beginning of a far more dirty campaign, but as a stand-alone it is not that bad for Obama. At least the soundside seems very pro-Obama. What do they want with it is the question?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lhXGkeMdOJs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> whoah buddy you messed up the link! all you have to do is grab it from the adress bar. That video doesn't look too bad for obama imo, I don't see how they think portraying obama as clueless about politics after that clown bush was president for 8 years will hit home.....
Just throwing this out there, during the elections of 2004 bush had;
5.5% unemployment rate
11 trillion federal deficit
gas price roughly $2 nationwide
9.6% underemployment
Medium household income at $44,339 (effective buying power of $53,843.37 today)
Rate of inflation at 1.9%
Compared to Obama in march at
9% unemployment
15.7 trillion federal deficit
gas price roughly $4 nationwide, going up to 5
Medium household income at roughly $51,000
20.3% underemployment
rate of inflation at 2.9%
And if bush is the clueless one... where does that leave obama?
|
Agree or disagree with the decision to keep reading the book but Bush did not do it because he couldn't decide what to do. He has said multiple times that he did not want to get up and leave the room abruptly and frighten or confuse the children - a decision the principal of the school agreed with, by the way. As did most of the children, when asked about what had happened ten years later:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2069582,00.html
One thing the students would like to tell Bush's critics — like liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, whose 2004 documentary Fahrenheit 911 disparaged Bush for lingering almost 10 minutes with the students after getting word that two planes had crashed into the World Trade Center — is that they think the President did the right thing. "I think he was trying to keep everybody calm, starting with us," says Guerrero. Dubrocq agrees: "I think he was trying to protect us." Booker Principal Gwendolyn Tose-Rigell, who died in 2007, later insisted, "I don't think anyone could have handled it better. What would it have served if [Bush] had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?"
|
On April 30 2012 07:04 DeepElemBlues wrote:Agree or disagree with the decision to keep reading the book but Bush did not do it because he couldn't decide what to do. He has said multiple times that he did not want to get up and leave the room abruptly and frighten or confuse the children - a decision the principal of the school agreed with, by the way. As did most of the children, when asked about what had happened ten years later: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2069582,00.htmlShow nested quote +One thing the students would like to tell Bush's critics — like liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, whose 2004 documentary Fahrenheit 911 disparaged Bush for lingering almost 10 minutes with the students after getting word that two planes had crashed into the World Trade Center — is that they think the President did the right thing. "I think he was trying to keep everybody calm, starting with us," says Guerrero. Dubrocq agrees: "I think he was trying to protect us." Booker Principal Gwendolyn Tose-Rigell, who died in 2007, later insisted, "I don't think anyone could have handled it better. What would it have served if [Bush] had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?"
Just because somebody says something, that doesn't make it a fact.
|
Just because somebody says something, that doesn't make it a fact.
Let me quote something you just said a few posts ago:
As far as I'm concerned that's just a bullshit way to dismiss an opinion different from your own instead of supporting your own opinion.
You can't actually support your opinion that Bush couldn't make a decision or that he was incapable of making one, he had to wait for someone to tell him what to do, but by God you'll happily disregard the man's own words and what the people who were actually there had to say in order to maintain that opinion.
|
On April 30 2012 02:47 BioNova wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2012 00:32 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Well you're certainly very knowledgeable and precise about how smart everyone who agrees with you is and how dumb everyone who disagrees is. You might also want to inquire of the good Doctor whether he supports demonizing the rich and old, he being both, as if you were precisely the kind of class warrior Dr. Paul fights against. These things are, though, a sad if typical consequence of youth in politics.
I think Ron Paul's a loon on any subject and I know far more about the Constitution than he or any of his supporters do. Political opinions have little if anything to do with intelligence or knowledge. Nice day in Alaska. Ron Paul's Alaska Payback.- PoliticoI hear it's pretty nice in Louisiana right about now Ron Paul wins Louisiana majority- ReutersI could link articles from Massachusetts, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Washington, and Maine, but I won't. Insulting Paul is fair game. I know your in the Romney camp this year. The real question is which keeps you warmer? The frothy Hard-Right Wing hatred of true conservatism, or those laughably outdated presumptious delegate totals? In your expertise, I'm sure your familiar with the GOP rules reguarding plurality and exactly how Paul is going to proceed from this point, whether it was strategy or not. Whether GOP likes it or not. It takes 5 states. It wasn't looking good for a while, but after managing to get some delagates in Romney strongholds, now we go into political overtime. I've said before if it was over, I would say it was over. It's looking a lot more like it's not. Even Sarah Palin's worst in-state enemy(State GOP chair, and his co-chair), who sat thru 6-7 presidential elections has fallen to Paulians. My state votes soon. GOP 2.0 incoming. After bug fixes, the product might be market-worthy again in 10 years. Some tumors are tougher than others.
As someone who doesn't know much of Ron Paul, or his bid at the nomination, how many delegates has he gained in Alaska (your first link)?
I clicked on your second link, thinking it was a news report of some kind, but at the top it just said:
"Press Release
Ron Paul Wins Louisiana Caucus
* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release. "
Have there been many news sites reporting that Ron Paul won Louisiana? Not press releases, but actual reporting. I did a quick search, but I kept getting the press release on media sites, and some site called "dailypaul.com" which I am assuming is a fansite.
|
On April 30 2012 07:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Let me quote something you just said a few posts ago: Show nested quote +As far as I'm concerned that's just a bullshit way to dismiss an opinion different from your own instead of supporting your own opinion.
I'm not dismissing your opinion. I'm dismissing your statement "Bush did not do it because he couldn't decide what to do." because you're presenting it as if it's a fact when you don't know if it's true or not. If you had said "I believe Bush did not want to scare the kids", then I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Pretty significant difference there.
|
On April 30 2012 07:02 Energizer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2012 06:42 nttea wrote:On April 30 2012 06:33 radiatoren wrote:
By the way, saw one of the first republican anti-Obama videos. While I do not like the kindergarten mudthrowing from either side I did find it somewhat interesting. I am pretty sure that it is only the beginning of a far more dirty campaign, but as a stand-alone it is not that bad for Obama. At least the soundside seems very pro-Obama. What do they want with it is the question?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lhXGkeMdOJs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> whoah buddy you messed up the link! all you have to do is grab it from the adress bar. That video doesn't look too bad for obama imo, I don't see how they think portraying obama as clueless about politics after that clown bush was president for 8 years will hit home..... Just throwing this out there, during the elections of 2004 bush had; 5.5% unemployment rate 11 trillion federal deficit gas price roughly $2 nationwide 9.6% underemployment Medium household income at $44,339 (effective buying power of $53,843.37 today) Rate of inflation at 1.9% Compared to Obama in march at 9% unemployment 15.7 trillion federal deficit gas price roughly $4 nationwide, going up to 5 Medium household income at roughly $51,000 20.3% underemployment rate of inflation at 2.9% And if bush is the clueless one... where does that leave obama?
If you just took those stats in a vacuum, which sadly too many people do, then of course it looks horrible for Obama. If you actually dug deeper though, then it doesn't look nearly as bad.
|
On April 30 2012 07:02 Energizer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2012 06:42 nttea wrote:On April 30 2012 06:33 radiatoren wrote:
By the way, saw one of the first republican anti-Obama videos. While I do not like the kindergarten mudthrowing from either side I did find it somewhat interesting. I am pretty sure that it is only the beginning of a far more dirty campaign, but as a stand-alone it is not that bad for Obama. At least the soundside seems very pro-Obama. What do they want with it is the question?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lhXGkeMdOJs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> whoah buddy you messed up the link! all you have to do is grab it from the adress bar. That video doesn't look too bad for obama imo, I don't see how they think portraying obama as clueless about politics after that clown bush was president for 8 years will hit home..... Just throwing this out there, during the elections of 2004 bush had; 5.5% unemployment rate 11 trillion federal deficit gas price roughly $2 nationwide 9.6% underemployment Medium household income at $44,339 (effective buying power of $53,843.37 today) Rate of inflation at 1.9% Compared to Obama in march at 9% unemployment 15.7 trillion federal deficit gas price roughly $4 nationwide, going up to 5 Medium household income at roughly $51,000 20.3% underemployment rate of inflation at 2.9% And if bush is the clueless one... where does that leave obama?
Ummm... you realize Presidents aren't that powerful right? I'd say the President has almost no effect whatsoever on 3 of those things. The others context is extremely important.
|
On April 30 2012 07:15 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2012 07:02 Energizer wrote:On April 30 2012 06:42 nttea wrote:On April 30 2012 06:33 radiatoren wrote:
By the way, saw one of the first republican anti-Obama videos. While I do not like the kindergarten mudthrowing from either side I did find it somewhat interesting. I am pretty sure that it is only the beginning of a far more dirty campaign, but as a stand-alone it is not that bad for Obama. At least the soundside seems very pro-Obama. What do they want with it is the question?
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lhXGkeMdOJs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> whoah buddy you messed up the link! all you have to do is grab it from the adress bar. That video doesn't look too bad for obama imo, I don't see how they think portraying obama as clueless about politics after that clown bush was president for 8 years will hit home..... Just throwing this out there, during the elections of 2004 bush had; 5.5% unemployment rate 11 trillion federal deficit gas price roughly $2 nationwide 9.6% underemployment Medium household income at $44,339 (effective buying power of $53,843.37 today) Rate of inflation at 1.9% Compared to Obama in march at 9% unemployment 15.7 trillion federal deficit gas price roughly $4 nationwide, going up to 5 Medium household income at roughly $51,000 20.3% underemployment rate of inflation at 2.9% And if bush is the clueless one... where does that leave obama? If you just took those stats in a vacuum, which sadly too many people do, then of course it looks horrible for Obama. If you actually dug deeper though, then it doesn't look nearly as bad.
And yet instead of backing your claims with fact you merely spouting your assumptions based only on opinions. If you really think the numbers look more in favor of Obama when you dig deeper, then please do so 
|
I'm not dismissing your opinion. I'm dismissing your statement "Bush did not do it because he couldn't decide what to do." because you're presenting it as if it's a fact when you don't know if it's true or not. If you had said "I believe Bush did not want to scare the kids", then I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Pretty significant difference there.
Man you're arguing against yourself so effectively. Your own statements regarding the reading of "My Pet Goat" under this standard are also worthy of nothing more than dismissal.
That also is not the reason you're dismissing it, the reason you're dismissing it is you hold a different belief and will grasp at any straw to maintain that belief.
You have an opinion on that you feel the need to defend to the death, to the point where the testimony of the people actually there - all of them except one not named George W. Bush - doesn't matter because in the end we aren't mind readers so we can't really know with absolute 100% confidence. Fine, then. We can't know 100% for a fact that he wasn't just totally stunned and he didn't know what to do except what he was already doing - reading "My Pet Goat."
But none of the testimony available from the man himself or the other people actually there supports that opinion, it supports the opposite. Believe or disbelieve it as you will, but don't pretend that you're coming from a position of trying to discover the truth. You already know what the truth is, and nothing will change that truth you hold in your head.
|
Obamney 2012. Where is the choice in that? Voting for Dr. Paul. We need a real fiscal conservative and non-interventionist right now. The military expenditures are killing us.
|
On April 30 2012 07:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +I'm not dismissing your opinion. I'm dismissing your statement "Bush did not do it because he couldn't decide what to do." because you're presenting it as if it's a fact when you don't know if it's true or not. If you had said "I believe Bush did not want to scare the kids", then I wouldn't have had a problem with it. Pretty significant difference there. Man you're arguing against yourself so effectively. Your own statements regarding the reading of "My Pet Goat" under this standard are also worthy of nothing more than dismissal. That also is not the reason you're dismissing it, the reason you're dismissing it is you hold a different belief and will grasp at any straw to maintain that belief. You have an opinion on that you feel the need to defend to the death, to the point where the testimony of the people actually there - all of them except one not named George W. Bush - doesn't matter because in the end we aren't mind readers so we can't really know with absolute 100% confidence. Fine, then. We can't know 100% for a fact that he wasn't just totally stunned and he didn't know what to do except what he was already doing - reading "My Pet Goat." But none of the testimony available from the man himself or the other people actually there supports that opinion, it supports the opposite. Believe or disbelieve it as you will, but don't pretend that you're coming from a position of trying to discover the truth. You already know what the truth is, and nothing will change that truth you hold in your head.
No, I don't know what the truth is. I have my opinion and I believe my opinion is the correct one or else I wouldn't have that opinion. What other people that were there said is irrelevant. The exchange was on video, why do I need an eyewitness's opinion? I'm pretty sure their mind-reading abilities are exactly as good as mine and anyone else's. I'm glad they all thought Bush did the ideal thing there. I would probably be less thrilled knowing that I was standing next to a high valued target while the country was under attack because he thought leaving might frighten me.
Either way, choosing to ignore his nation in crisis out of fear that he might frighten a few kids is an even worse thing than just doing nothing. I'd rather have the President that sat there like a doofus than the President that said "ah, the country can wait. The important thing is that I don't get up too abruptly!"
p.s. I've long known about the excuse Bush gave for why he sat there. I'm not grasping at straws to hold onto my opinion. I just don't make it a habit to accept politicians statements as truth especially when it doesn't ring true to me.
|
On April 30 2012 07:20 Chytilova wrote:
Ummm... you realize Presidents aren't that powerful right? I'd say the President has almost no effect whatsoever on 3 of those things. The others context is extremely important.
Right. Presidents aren't powerful, but EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS 100% BUSH'S FAULT@@@@@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously, you guys are ridiculous. If you want to have a debate, fine, but the "my way is the only way to look at it" completely makes you sound hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
