3 possibly 6, confirmation on the larger number is sketchy and questionable, people were ‘waterboarded.’ Last done in 2003.
Perhaps you are referring to some other incident/incidents of what is referred to as “torture” ?
But keep the expressions of hate rolling. It can be illuminative for the thread.
[quote=“bobl”]TC, it’s not just the left/libs.
I am a life long Republican, raised in a family of life long Republicans. I voted Reagan x 2, Bush 1 x 2, Dole, and Bush 2 the first time.
I think he and his administration sucks ass.
Ron Paul, or other Libertarians, or even some more central Democrats would be better than the shit we got now.
Goldwater and Reagan must be spinning in their graves.[/quote]
Exactly. :bravo:
It’s not just the “left/libs” who dislike Bush. If TC is still a fan of the president, which he appears to be, he’s clearly in the minority.
Polls consistently show that roughly 2/3 of US voters disapprove of the job Bush is doing and only 1/3 approve.
On the other hand, Clinton consistently had about a 2/3 favorable rating and just 1/3 unfavorable.
So, if you want to continue supporting him, fine, that’s your right. But don’t delude yourself into believing you’re in the majority.
Allow me a few brutally honest remarks, if you please. I don’t know you personally; all I have to measure you is what I see from you here. You could be Ghandi or Mother Teresa incarnate in real life for all I know; or not. No hate, no love; just business.
Frankly, I think the opening post is very disingenuous. Are we surprised when the employees of Enron said bad things (even launched vitriol) about their former CEO after how his performance and actions affected them and the company? No. Are we writing articles about how the employees of WorldCom were just being ‘irrational’ over their CEO given all their efforts to get him tried in court? No.
The President of the United States of America is the de facto CEO of the country; this is something everyone able to read this already knows. The ‘employees’ of that ‘company’–who also happen to be voting ‘shareholders’–have every right to express their dissatisfaction towards the (perceived or actual) lack of performance that has been on display over the last few years. Guess what? It even happens to ‘good’ CEOs! So, are we really shocked when a poor-performer (perceived or otherwise) gets a higher share of insults thrown his/her way? Really, really?! No, this is untruthful.
Even if you are an amazing officer–one of the best–you will still have detractors. It’s just how the game is; if you don’t like it, go play in the minors–the big leagues aren’t for you. Better yet, don’t play; take your ball and go home. But at least, amongst us, let’s drop the ‘golly-gee, BillyBob, I just don’t know why people don’t like him’ act–it’s dishonest to do otherwise and many are not fooled by it.
The employees of WorldCom, Enron, etc, only lost their pension and their ‘irrational hatred’ towards those respective officers is deemed justified. In wars, people sometimes lose a lot more than a pension fund: sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, lovers, childhood friends, … their moral compass, their health, their limbs, their sanity, etc… The actions of those corporate officers only affected a few hundred thousand people or so; the scale of the greater U.S. is many times that. Yet, we are ‘amazed’ that a sizable contingent of the citizenry really doesn’t like “ol’ ‘Dubya?’” Is this for real?? No, actually, this is insincere.
It doesn’t matter if you think he’s the greatest president since Washington or the worst; it doesn’t take a Ph.D. in mathematics to figure out that: (a) he’s going to be unpopular given the current circumstances and (b) the masses, who have a certain degree of freedom, will express themselves so. This is not a surprise for anyone above the emotional age of eighteen. Maybe the title should change to: “I don’t like people not liking GWB.” Or, “People should like GWB because…” Better to be up front about your objective than to claim ignorance over something so fundamentally basic.
On the other hand, I also realize some people just really love being a contrarian–it’s part of their psychological profile; they can’t get enough of it, oftentimes it’s the only exciting thing that will happen in their otherwise uneventful day. But that is as stupid and immature as the other fools blindly following the majority these contrarians profess to despise so much. It’s like watching a set of children set their direction by going the opposite way the other children are going. Cute, albeit bizarre, during childhood; pitiful during adulthood.
Some others have a more serious pathological imperative to ‘rattle the cage’ in order to get their ‘kicks.’ Oftentimes, they really don’t care either way; all they want is to watch others be put on the defensive or squirm, or hurt, etc… This last scenario is rather problematic, not to mention disturbing, and requires significantly more resources to fix. Easiest solution for this scenario in this Internet-Forums medium is to simply shun and ignore the person in order to deprive them of their means of ‘getting off.’
Fortunately, I don’t think either of these last two is the case for you. However, if they were, we should change the title of the thread to: “My friend(s) and I need attention; please post here.” At least that would be honest and WAY more fun and entertaining for all involved.
Constructive Feedback:
(a) Change the title of the thread to reflect its true intent. You are a wee-bit too smart to claim ignorance or feign indignant shock over this.
(b) Never switch focus when a question about someone else’s performance arises; it shows weakness and lack of preparedness. When one manages a unit and it comes time to partition incentives and a rival questions your allocations, one does not win by answering with “why the hate?” Answering it with ‘why not’ is even worse–it shows lack of maturity to go along with the weakness and lack of preparedness. Answer it by giving specific, measurable reasons why such-and-such deserve such a compensation package; list out the contributions to the bottom line this person(s) has brought to the table.
Similarly, don’t cry over the ‘hate’ for GWB; state your perceived accomplishments and contributions that he’s brought to the bottom line and be prepared to defend them without emotional drama. Also, remember that we are talking about running a corporation/country–not a cult. Leave the faith-based economics, hopes/wishes/dreams, would’ve/could’ve/should’ve at home–bring facts.
Regards,
Nice post. Don’t know how you intend to square these statements:
The Clintons are well known to have fraternized “affectionately” with negros. The extreme right does not forgive that. You will note that fred is considering voting for Hillary, while tweedle jesus and beer dumbo, as usual, doesn’t know whether to spit or get a boob job.
Hrodric -
Impressively constructed post. However its focus isn’t related to the points made in the OP.
No its isn’t. It is a valid topic related to the articles posted. Worldcom and Enron are not under discussion in the OT - It is the level of hatred directed towards President Bush by well organized special interest groups which themselves affect the overall publics view and opinion of his Presidency and person.
[quote]The President of the United States of America is the de facto CEO of the country; this is something everyone able to read this already knows.[/quote]OK…and?[quote] The ‘employees’ of that ‘company’–who also happen to be voting ‘shareholders’–have every right to express their dissatisfaction towards the (perceived or actual) lack of performance that has been on display over the last few years.[/quote]OK…[quote] Guess what? It even happens to ‘good’ CEOs! [/quote]“Good” CEOs’ make their shareholders money. Its what they are there for.[quote]So, are we really shocked when a poor-performer (perceived or otherwise) gets a higher share of insults thrown his/her way? Really, really?! No, this is untruthful.[/quote]Complete re-direction of the intended topic here. The topic is the level of hatred and animosity directed towards Bush, which, by the way, is not such a universal public opinion as you would have us believe.
[quote]Maybe the title should change to: “I don’t like people not liking GWB.” Or, “People should like GWB because…”[/quote]No…not really…but please, feel free to start a thread with that title. Should be interesting[quote] Better to be up front about your objective than to claim ignorance over something so fundamentally basic.[/quote]Making an assumptio here you are. Don’t think I need to make the usual “assumption” reply…so I won’t.
[quote]Fortunately, I don’t think either of these last two is the case for you. However, if they were, we should change the title of the thread to: “My friend(s) and I need attention; please post here.” At least that would be honest and WAY more fun and entertaining for all involved.[/quote] And yet you felt it necessary to mention and explain these in detail. Re-directing the thread again, eh? Its not about me…its about the material presented in the OP.
[quote]Constructive Feedback:[/quote]Off topic…but what the heck…do your best
quote Change the title of the thread to reflect its true intent.[/quote]No…the topic of the thread is clearly presented. Start your own thread on this topic if you want.[quote] You are a wee-bit too smart to claim ignorance or feign indignant shock over this.[/quote]I’m doing neither. Don’t make false claims to support your assertions.
quote Never switch focus when a question about someone else’s performance arises; it shows weakness and lack of preparedness. When one manages a unit and it comes time to partition incentives and a rival questions your allocations, one does not win by answering with “why the hate?” Answering it with ‘why not’ is even worse–it shows lack of maturity to go along with the weakness and lack of preparedness. Answer it by giving specific, measurable reasons why such-and-such deserve such a compensation package; list out the contributions to the bottom line this person(s) has brought to the table.[/quote]Heed your own advice - See OP.
[quote]Regards,[/quote]Ever onward.
p.s. - I really wasn’t sure if you were directing this comment at me or another poster. If it was meant for someone else, please disregard my comments.
Bill Clinton was the best thing that ever happened to China, and the second best thing that ever happened to India. Bush was the best thing that ever happened to Al Qaeda. Why not elect Obama and do something for your own country?
I hate Bob. Does that make me a leftie? a liberal?
What supposition? That your psychosis is getting worse? You post an illogical post using slanted, loaded language and a quote from an equally brain dead blog article and people point it out. What more is there to it?
It gets confusing I know. Think of it this way, Clinton was a liberal like mussolini was a rigantoni, or something, anyway, that summer in Italy certainly was an eye opener. I’m curious at this point if you know of any swank places to stay for a couple of days near enough Veranasi…
I’m not feeling the love.
Don’t be so harsh, bob. It’s just a simple misunderstanding. The word he was searching for is suppository.
That would explain a lot.
Ever since my Scott McClellan moment back in 2002 I’ve felt sad and deeply disillusioned for my country. When your mantra is ‘you either love us or you hate us’ or something like that I suppose it would be easy to misinterpret that emotion as hatred but it’s not.
The fact is I’ve got plenty of friends like President Bush. He’s my kind of people. Like bobl, I even voted for him once. I wouldn’t want most of my friends being POTUS though because I know they’d royally fuck up the country. That certainly doesn’t mean I hate them. That just means I know when somebody is in way over their head.
On a side note, Fred, the clinical term for your Jimmy Carter hatred is Zionism. It’s the belief system that you either love Israel or you’re an anti-semite and there’s nothing much else in between – which you’re about to demonstrate for us.
You children wash your hands before you eat your dinner.
[quote=“Hrodric”]Allow me a few brutally honest remarks, if you please. I don’t know you personally; all I have to measure you is what I see from you here. You could be Ghandi or Mother Teresa incarnate in real life for all I know; or not. No hate, no love; just business.
Frankly, I think the opening post is very disingenuous. Are we surprised when the employees of Enron said bad things (even launched vitriol) about their former CEO after how his performance and actions affected them and the company? No. Are we writing articles about how the employees of WorldCom were just being ‘irrational’ over their CEO given all their efforts to get him tried in court? No.
The President of the United States of America is the de facto CEO of the country; this is something everyone able to read this already knows. The ‘employees’ of that ‘company’–who also happen to be voting ‘shareholders’–have every right to express their dissatisfaction towards the (perceived or actual) lack of performance that has been on display over the last few years. Guess what? It even happens to ‘good’ CEOs! So, are we really shocked when a poor-performer (perceived or otherwise) gets a higher share of insults thrown his/her way? Really, really?! No, this is untruthful.
Even if you are an amazing officer–one of the best–you will still have detractors. It’s just how the game is; if you don’t like it, go play in the minors–the big leagues aren’t for you. Better yet, don’t play; take your ball and go home. But at least, amongst us, let’s drop the ‘golly-gee, BillyBob, I just don’t know why people don’t like him’ act–it’s dishonest to do otherwise and many are not fooled by it.
The employees of WorldCom, Enron, etc, only lost their pension and their ‘irrational hatred’ towards those respective officers is deemed justified. In wars, people sometimes lose a lot more than a pension fund: sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, lovers, childhood friends, … their moral compass, their health, their limbs, their sanity, etc… The actions of those corporate officers only affected a few hundred thousand people or so; the scale of the greater U.S. is many times that. Yet, we are ‘amazed’ that a sizable contingent of the citizenry really doesn’t like “ol’ ‘Dubya?’” Is this for real?? No, actually, this is insincere.
It doesn’t matter if you think he’s the greatest president since Washington or the worst; it doesn’t take a Ph.D. in mathematics to figure out that: (a) he’s going to be unpopular given the current circumstances and (b) the masses, who have a certain degree of freedom, will express themselves so. This is not a surprise for anyone above the emotional age of eighteen. Maybe the title should change to: “I don’t like people not liking GWB.” Or, “People should like GWB because…” Better to be up front about your objective than to claim ignorance over something so fundamentally basic.
On the other hand, I also realize some people just really love being a contrarian–it’s part of their psychological profile; they can’t get enough of it, oftentimes it’s the only exciting thing that will happen in their otherwise uneventful day. But that is as stupid and immature as the other fools blindly following the majority these contrarians profess to despise so much. It’s like watching a set of children set their direction by going the opposite way the other children are going. Cute, albeit bizarre, during childhood; pitiful during adulthood.
Some others have a more serious pathological imperative to ‘rattle the cage’ in order to get their ‘kicks.’ Oftentimes, they really don’t care either way; all they want is to watch others be put on the defensive or squirm, or hurt, etc… This last scenario is rather problematic, not to mention disturbing, and requires significantly more resources to fix. Easiest solution for this scenario in this Internet-Forums medium is to simply shun and ignore the person in order to deprive them of their means of ‘getting off.’
Fortunately, I don’t think either of these last two is the case for you. However, if they were, we should change the title of the thread to: “My friend(s) and I need attention; please post here.” At least that would be honest and WAY more fun and entertaining for all involved.
Constructive Feedback:
(a) Change the title of the thread to reflect its true intent. You are a wee-bit too smart to claim ignorance or feign indignant shock over this.
(b) Never switch focus when a question about someone else’s performance arises; it shows weakness and lack of preparedness. When one manages a unit and it comes time to partition incentives and a rival questions your allocations, one does not win by answering with “why the hate?” Answering it with ‘why not’ is even worse–it shows lack of maturity to go along with the weakness and lack of preparedness. Answer it by giving specific, measurable reasons why such-and-such deserve such a compensation package; list out the contributions to the bottom line this person(s) has brought to the table.
Similarly, don’t cry over the ‘hate’ for GWB; state your perceived accomplishments and contributions that he’s brought to the bottom line and be prepared to defend them without emotional drama. Also, remember that we are talking about running a corporation/country–not a cult. Leave the faith-based economics, hopes/wishes/dreams, would’ve/could’ve/should’ve at home–bring facts.
Regards,[/quote]
My vote for one of the most intelligently-constructed posts in the IP. Definitely a keeper in the Hall of Fame.
Traumatic events, of a global scale and nature, change the course of human history, and after they happen, the world is never the same the morning after. Historically, major political revolutions and the wars they tend to spawn have reshaped the world in ways that seemed unimaginable before those events occurred. The Bush haters tend to be, but are not always, Clinton Era Democrats (and yes, I’m speaking of Americans here; what citizens of other countries think about Bush means nothing.) These people fail to recognize the way the world changed on Sept. 11. You can sit around and wish that your boy Bill had still been in office, or that his lapdog Al Gore had succeeded him, but the fact is neither of those guys were in the hot seat that day. Bush was, and he recognized that things had changed, that pre-emptive action was called for, and that since America had the most to lose, America had the right to call the shots to try to accomplish whatever mission it saw fit.
I have no idea what Clinton or Gore would have done, but I suspect not much, at least not anything that would have pissed off the world very much. Clinton was perhaps the most poll-driven president of all time. As for my own tastes, I don’t want a president who constantly checks the pulse of the country, or the UN, to see if his proposed moves are going to sit well with the populace. I want a president who acts; that’s what I voted for. The US constitution doesn’t grant the electorate the right of consultation. I’m quite happy with Bush and Co. and the moves they’ve made. Is the country different now? Maybe, but it’s not the goddamned gulag that these lefties rant about. American freedoms have not been restricted. Americans are not being spied on by the government (at least no more than usual; I spent nine years on active duty in the US Army Intelligence Corps, and if Americans ever assumed they were free and clear of any kind of general surveillance, then they were dreaming.) Bush has not turned the constitution on its head the way the left wants to pretend he has.
All this Bush hatred, to me, sounds like lefties who got fat and happy under Clinton, assuming Saturday Night Bill/Sunday Morning Clinton was going to go on forever. But once his run was done, and 9/11 happened, things changed. America, at that moment, had a new president who just happened to care more about America than he did about world opinion. If there are more dead non-Americans since 9/11 than there are dead Americans, then I call that a president doing his job. Americans don’t elect a president to take care of the world; we elect a president to take care of Americans.
Do you know how many film directors have been murdered by Muslim extremists while riding their bikes down American streets? Zero. Do you know how many Muslim extremists are taking over American cities and getting the American government to pass ludicrous laws making “incitement of religious hatred” a crime? Zero. Do you know how many American subways or trains have been attacked since 9/11? Zero. The 3,000+ dead American service members in Iraq and Afghanistan died doing exactly what they volunteered to do: serve. They died taking the fight to the people who would have been planning or carrying out the very kinds of attacks described above, attacks that have happened in Europe and elsewhere since the Iraq War started. (And I’m well aware that Iraq had no involvement in 9/11. The hunter, not the hunted, chooses the battleground; Iraq turned out to be it. Deal with it. By “taking the fight to the people,” I’m referring to the thousands of extremists who have poured into Iraq since the war started. I feel for the Iraqi people, but their ordeal will end one day.)
The Bush haters can go on hating, and maybe next November they throw everyone out and get to start things over their own way. God bless them if they do. I’ll accept that. These past seven years have been unfortunate, but also unfortunately necessary. Bush was handed something no president asks for, and he acted in what he thought were the best interests of his country. That’s what a leader does. What a leader does not do is tilt nipple to every piss-ant crybaby who longs for a world where everyone loves everyone else. Good luck with that. While you guys are waiting for that to happen, Bush and Co. will be dealing with the world for what it is, a shit-hole full of self-interested groups of people who only hate that they didn’t live in a time when their people were kings of the hill. That’s where America is for the time being, and while we’re there, our president will do what any other national leader would do, work to keep us there. It just so happens that right now, the way to do that is to break things and kill people. No one likes it, but deal with it.
[quote=“Hrodric”]Never switch focus when a question about someone else’s performance arises; it shows weakness and lack of preparedness. When one manages a unit and it comes time to partition incentives and a rival questions your allocations, one does not win by answering with “why the hate?” Answering it with ‘why not’ is even worse–it shows lack of maturity to go along with the weakness and lack of preparedness. Answer it by giving specific, measurable reasons why such-and-such deserve such a compensation package; list out the contributions to the bottom line this person(s) has brought to the table.
Similarly, don’t cry over the ‘hate’ for GWB; state your perceived accomplishments and contributions that he’s brought to the bottom line and be prepared to defend them without emotional drama. Also, remember that we are talking about running a corporation/country–not a cult. Leave the faith-based economics, hopes/wishes/dreams, would’ve/could’ve/should’ve at home–bring facts.[/quote]
Asking a bit much aren’t you, you goddam Bush hater you? :bravo:
There are ways to increase security without decreasing liberty. Liberty and security are not inversely proportional.
The failure to recognize this truth and act on it is one of Bush’s major shortcomings.
The issue is not whether domestic surveillance occurs. The issue is the Bush Administration’s belief that it can ignore acts of Congress with impunity. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 expressly forbids the government from carrying out domestic surveillance operations without judicial consent. In recognition of the need to start taps quickly and maintain secrecy, FISA instituted secret courts that the law enforcement/intelligence agents could go to within 48 hours of beginning operations. Every US President from Ford (who signed the bill) to Clinton obeyed the law. The Bush Administration ignored it. When they got caught, they claimed that the act itself infringed on executive privilege. Anyone familiar with early American history knows that the Founding Fathers were intent (in some cases, obsessed) with creating a form of government that prevents those kinds of power grabs.
And it’s not just Democrats who are outraged at the administration’s illegal domestic surveillance. Check out Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances.