Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-03-2004, 04:22 PM
tnetennba tnetennba is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,230
Bush the divider...

When Kerry conceded the election, he asked Bush to show more compassion. Bush responded by promising more tax cuts for the wealthy, privatization of social security, and more integration of religion and government. These are the things he has no mandate to do. People voted out of fear, not out of a deep desire for a deeply stratified economy that favors the upper class, crushes the middle class, and legislates morality. So much for compassion and unity. He's pitting class against class, and the religious against the secular.
  #2  
Old 11-03-2004, 04:46 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 35,132
For the first time in sixteen years, a candidate has gotten an absolute majority of the vote. Yet you call him a 'divider'.

Most people who voted wanted Bush, presumably because of what he said he would do if re-elected. Now you claim he has some obligation not to follow thru on his promises. This makes no sense.

Look, you need to recognize something - Kerry lost. The majority of the electorate did not want what Kerry said he would do. Thus, there is no particular reason why Bush should try to turn into Kerry - just the opposite, in fact.

Regards,
Shodan
  #3  
Old 11-03-2004, 04:55 PM
Dignan Dignan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: On the run from JohnnyLaw
Posts: 1,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
For the first time in sixteen years, a candidate has gotten an absolute majority of the vote. Yet you call him a 'divider'.

Most people who voted wanted Bush, presumably because of what he said he would do if re-elected. Now you claim he has some obligation not to follow thru on his promises. This makes no sense.

Look, you need to recognize something - Kerry lost. The majority of the electorate did not want what Kerry said he would do. Thus, there is no particular reason why Bush should try to turn into Kerry - just the opposite, in fact.

Regards,
Shodan
Baloney. People were scared. Scared of being attacked, or scared of the "unknown" candidate. Why should anyone believe that Bush would follow thorugh on his promises? He didn't the last time. He promised to be bi-partisan. He said he wouldn't get involved in nation building. He said he would improve education, then underfunded his poorly planned program. When he was running the first time he said he would privatize social security, and it didn't happen. One of the few promises he has kept was to give tax cuts to the rich.

I don't think the electorate didn't believe what Kerry said, they were scared. People probably prefer to have affordable health care, but insurance really doesn't matter if you think an airplane is going to get hijacked and flown into the town Wal-Mart.
  #4  
Old 11-03-2004, 05:00 PM
XT XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by cricetus
People voted out of fear, not out of a deep desire for a deeply stratified economy that favors the upper class, crushes the middle class, and legislates morality.
How do you know this? You are just guessing here and you know it. I didn't vote for Bush (I voted Badnarik), but my wife didn't vote Bush out of 'fear'...one of the main reasons she voted for Bush was because of the tax cuts and what it meant to our family. We are by no means 'rich', yet we got back a huge amount on our taxes...and it helped a lot.

As to your rant about a 'stratified economy that favors the upper class, crushes the middle class, and legislates morality' I don't agree that this is what Bush is doing.

-XT
  #5  
Old 11-03-2004, 05:03 PM
tnetennba tnetennba is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtisme
How do you know this? You are just guessing here and you know it. I didn't vote for Bush (I voted Badnarik), but my wife didn't vote Bush out of 'fear'...one of the main reasons she voted for Bush was because of the tax cuts and what it meant to our family. We are by no means 'rich', yet we got back a huge amount on our taxes...and it helped a lot.

As to your rant about a 'stratified economy that favors the upper class, crushes the middle class, and legislates morality' I don't agree that this is what Bush is doing.

-XT
Because he said so in his acceptance speech.
  #6  
Old 11-03-2004, 05:10 PM
XT XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by cricetus
Because he said so in his acceptance speech.
Horseshit...thats how you interpereted it, not what he said. Those are two different things, and I don't think you understand the distinction.

-XT
  #7  
Old 11-03-2004, 05:16 PM
bup bup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: glenview,il,usa
Posts: 11,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtisme
How do you know this? You are just guessing here and you know it.
He could be basing his conclusions on exit polls, which showed that 19% of the electorate considered terrorism the number one issue, and went for Bush 86%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dignan
One of the few promises he has kept was to give tax cuts to the rich.
But he also promised "by far the vast majority of the help goes to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder." So he lied there, too.
  #8  
Old 11-03-2004, 05:59 PM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 81,092
Oh god... this guy paid his subscription.

If it makes you feel any better, Karl Rove is sitting somewhere rubbing his hands together and muttering: "MWUHAHAHAHAHA!!!"
  #9  
Old 11-03-2004, 06:10 PM
XT XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by bup
He could be basing his conclusions on exit polls, which showed that 19% of the electorate considered terrorism the number one issue, and went for Bush 86%.
Er...correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't that mean that 81% felt there were OTHER reasons but fear to vote for? And I always though 81% is more than 19%...

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace
Oh god... this guy paid his subscription.
If he doesn't calm down some it will be a moot point...

-XT
  #10  
Old 11-03-2004, 06:16 PM
bup bup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: glenview,il,usa
Posts: 11,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtisme
Er...correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't that mean that 81% felt there were OTHER reasons but fear to vote for? And I always though 81% is more than 19%...
But he only won by 3%. Fear could well have made the difference in the election.
  #11  
Old 11-03-2004, 09:02 PM
Rashak Mani Rashak Mani is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brazil - Brasilia
Posts: 3,996
Bush hasn't been an uniter before... any reason to beleive he will be now ?

This election will only reinforce his idea of never being wrong. The "people have spoken" and they "chose" Bush despite so many fucked up things. Plus he has GOP control of Congress... why bother "uniting" or bi-partisanship ? No re-election to try...

I just don't see any plausible reasons for Bush to be more moderate or balanced about any of his policies.
  #12  
Old 11-03-2004, 10:02 PM
TonyF TonyF is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rashak Mani
This election will only reinforce his idea of never being wrong. The "people have spoken" and they "chose" Bush despite so many fucked up things.
I'm oddly torn about this. It occurs to me that he may fall victim to the same thing as the democrats - being so confident of his position and his support that he makes bad decisions.

I'll admit now that I and many others were so confident that people would vote based on Bush's mistakes that we didn't even consider the idea of him winning. It's been quite a shock.

In a way, I hope he makes the same mistake and marginalizes himself based on some notion of a mandate. He already has been acting in a similar vein by forging ahead with Iraq. But at the same time, that would be a terrible thing to happen.
  #13  
Old 11-03-2004, 10:12 PM
Quasimodal Quasimodal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: N / A
Posts: 1,437
Bush is a divider even though he got the majority of the vote. My statistics may be sketchy (I'm a Canadian) but he only got 51% of it. That's not exactly a large margin between him and his opponent. And more to the point regardless of his winning the popular vote democrats and republicans seem to religously follow their leader. One needs look no further than the postings in this thread to see how intensly divided each side's supporters are. Don't forget how widely supported Bush was after 9/11 and how much more divisive his support is now.
  #14  
Old 11-03-2004, 10:41 PM
SmackFu SmackFu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Naugatuck, CT
Posts: 6,760
When Kerry conceded, Bush also said, in that very same speech:
Quote:
Reaching these goals will require the broad support of Americans. So today I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent: To make this nation stronger and better I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust. A new term is a new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation. We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America.
  #15  
Old 11-04-2004, 12:17 AM
bup bup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: glenview,il,usa
Posts: 11,905
...and here's a choice tidbit from his acceptance speech for his first term:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bush
Tonight I chose to speak from the chamber of the Texas House of Representatives because it has been a home to bipartisan cooperation. Here in a place where Democrats have the majority, Republicans and Democrats have worked together to do what is right for the people we represent.

We've had spirited disagreements. And in the end, we found constructive consensus. It is an experience I will always carry with me, an example I will always follow.
That's why I'm not impressed.
  #16  
Old 11-04-2004, 12:36 AM
jayjay jayjay is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 36,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmackFu
When Kerry conceded, Bush also said, in that very same speech:
Quote:
Reaching these goals will require the broad support of Americans. So today I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent: To make this nation stronger and better I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust. A new term is a new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation. We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America.
Yeah. That sounds familiar...like somebody said something just like it four years ago.

How did that work out for us again?
  #17  
Old 11-04-2004, 12:48 AM
SmackFu SmackFu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Naugatuck, CT
Posts: 6,760
The OP was arguing that he was a divider based on what he said in that speech. Clearly a lie or delusion.

Beyond that, only time will tell.
  #18  
Old 11-04-2004, 12:49 AM
Brutus Brutus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,175
So some of you don't like Bush, ergo, he is a 'divider'? Amazing how you guys just can't seem to do any wrong; all faults conveniently fall at Dubya's feet.
  #19  
Old 11-04-2004, 12:50 AM
jayjay jayjay is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 36,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutus
So some of you don't like Bush, ergo, he is a 'divider'? Amazing how you guys just can't seem to do any wrong; all faults conveniently fall at Dubya's feet.
That's only because he keeps stepping in it.
  #20  
Old 11-04-2004, 12:57 AM
SmackFu SmackFu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Naugatuck, CT
Posts: 6,760
You certainly can't argue that he's a "uniter".
  #21  
Old 11-04-2004, 01:18 AM
jayjay jayjay is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 36,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmackFu
You certainly can't argue that he's a "uniter".
Of course they can. If only those of us who apparently don't have the country's best interests at heart would shut up and get in step, he'd be uniting us all!

I have no idea why Bush-supporters would expect us to shut up now that the election's over. He won. Fine. Kerry can concede, so can I. That doesn't mean he's the right man for the job, and it doesn't mean that he's good for America. It just means that he convinced more people to vote for him. Even given the highest reasonable respect and love for democracy, a majority vote doesn't magically confer objective rightness on the winner.

Bush is still bad for America. He's still a bumbling incompetent liar. He just happens to be a bumbling incompetent liar who's bad for America who happens to be the President of the United States for a second term.
  #22  
Old 11-04-2004, 01:19 AM
rjung rjung is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Fifth corner of the Earth
Posts: 17,034
If Bush wasn't a uniter in his first four years, why should anyone reasonably expect him to act like one in the next four?
__________________
--R.J.
Electric Escape -- Information superhighway rest area #10,186
  #23  
Old 11-04-2004, 01:24 AM
jayjay jayjay is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 36,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjung
If Bush wasn't a uniter in his first four years, why should anyone reasonably expect him to act like one in the next four?
Cognitive dissonance. It's going around lately, I heard.
  #24  
Old 11-04-2004, 10:17 AM
velveeta velveeta is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 447
This Republican apparently thinks Bush should be a divider:

http://www.adamyoshida.com/2004/11/f...-you-sons.html
  #25  
Old 11-04-2004, 10:35 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan
For the first time in sixteen years, a candidate has gotten an absolute majority of the vote. Yet you call him a 'divider'....

Look, you need to recognize something - Kerry lost. The majority of the electorate did not want what Kerry said he would do. Thus, there is no particular reason why Bush should try to turn into Kerry - just the opposite, in fact.
Yes, Kerry lost. That doesn't mean that the Democratic Party has been vanquished. If Bush wants to be a uniter, he's going to have to urge the Dems to work with him, and he's going to have to muzzle, to some extent, the right-wing hacks in Congress who are more interested in political scorecounting than in running the country.

For now, I'll take those blantantly partisan, divisive statements, which imply that Democrats should just give up and not even attempt to represent the 48% of the country that voted for change, as a bit of well-earned gloating and a knee-jerk reaction to the gloom-and-doom from the left side of this board.

I sure hope that Bush knows better than to think that "coming together" means Republicans staying exactly where they are and expecting the Dems to roll over and be patsies. I sure expect that you, Shodan, would not have have wanted the Republicans to roll over in that fashion in 1992, so common sense would mean that should shouldn't expect Dems to do it in 2004.
  #26  
Old 11-04-2004, 10:53 AM
Rashak Mani Rashak Mani is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brazil - Brasilia
Posts: 3,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman
I sure hope that Bush knows better than to think that "coming together" means Republicans staying exactly where they are and expecting the Dems to roll over and be patsies. I sure expect that you, Shodan, would not have have wanted the Republicans to roll over in that fashion in 1992, so common sense would mean that should shouldn't expect Dems to do it in 2004.
Well he is still waiting for Iraqis to roll over... the french to roll over... when "God" is on your side... others should prostrate before you. Don't expect concessions... sad.
  #27  
Old 11-04-2004, 12:42 PM
tnetennba tnetennba is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by xtisme
Horseshit...thats how you interpereted it, not what he said. Those are two different things, and I don't think you understand the distinction.

-XT
I get sick of being right all the time.

"Turning his attention to the new Congress, where Republicans gained seats in Tuesday's elections, [Bush] said he wants legislation to fundamentally reorder Social Security and the tax system."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...rtner=homepage
  #28  
Old 11-04-2004, 12:53 PM
tnetennba tnetennba is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutus
So some of you don't like Bush, ergo, he is a 'divider'? Amazing how you guys just can't seem to do any wrong; all faults conveniently fall at Dubya's feet.
Bush has divided the country in several obvious ways, none of which has to do with him personally. I don't know why I'd bother explaining this to one who has obviously not even scanned the headlines of a newspaper for about five years, but consider the following:

1. Bush uses bogus "amendment" to rally bigots against Gay rights, dividing the country on a sensitive issue.
2. Bush promises to privatize social security, putting our mandatory investments at risk so others can profit
3. Bush promises to "overhaul" taxes to further take the burden off of the wealthy and either transfer it to the poor and middle class, run the country into debt, or...
4. Slash the hell out social programs, although he'll still have to find a way to pay for his goddamned
5. Wars, which are only beginning, apparently.
6. Bush clearly intends to stock the Supreme Court with righties who are bent on thrashing civil liberties.
7. Bush wants to pursue "faith-based" government.

So there you have it. Seven rifts, none of which are about Bush. Of course none of the people against Bush matter, in his mandate. Fuck women, gays, liberals, pacificists, non-Christians, and everyone else.

He's a divider.
  #29  
Old 11-04-2004, 12:57 PM
bup bup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: glenview,il,usa
Posts: 11,905
...and Scott McClelland just asked the left to reach a little harder, because Shrub's reach "only goes so far."

A wise man once said, "There's an old saying in Tennessee I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, fool me once, shame on shame on you. Fool me you can't get fooled again."

I think I'll take that advice.
  #30  
Old 11-04-2004, 01:01 PM
jayjay jayjay is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 36,050
In other words, as predicted, "uniting" involves his opponents rolling over and presenting their unprotected necks to the alpha wolf.

Fuck him.
  #31  
Old 11-04-2004, 01:02 PM
Brutus Brutus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by cricetus
I get sick of being right all the time.

"Turning his attention to the new Congress, where Republicans gained seats in Tuesday's elections, [Bush] said he wants legislation to fundamentally reorder Social Security and the tax system."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...rtner=homepage
Wow, just like he called for while campaigning? Amazing.
  #32  
Old 11-04-2004, 01:31 PM
XT XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 32,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by cricetus
I get sick of being right all the time.

"Turning his attention to the new Congress, where Republicans gained seats in Tuesday's elections, [Bush] said he wants legislation to fundamentally reorder Social Security and the tax system."
If you get sick whenever you are right, you must be one of the healthiest people in existance.

How this quote 'proves' you were 'right' I fail to see. Would you care to take a shot at explaining? This is pretty much what he said during the election he would do...he's doing it. The only shock (to me) is that he didn't just forget all about it with the election in the bag. Setting that aside, how does this prove he's a divider in your mind? How does it prove that you are right about him destroying the middle class, blah blah blah? How does it prove anything you've asserted, in
fact?

Quote:
1. Bush uses bogus "amendment" to rally bigots against Gay rights, dividing the country on a sensitive issue.
I really hate to break this to you, but the majority of US citizens don't support Gay marrage at this time. Personally I think they are wrong about that, and I think it will change in the future...but you need to take a reality break here. Bush isn't using 'bogus amendments to rally bigots'...the majority of US citizens DO NOT SUPPORT GAY MARRAGE. Get it?

Quote:
2. Bush promises to privatize social security, putting our mandatory investments at risk so others can profit
Horseshit. Bush is talking about options for making social security work. The big plan that Bush talked about during the election came out of a BIPARTISAN COMMITTEE looking into ways to help out social security. IF it gets implimented (something I tend to doubt) it would only be for younger workers just getting into the system, not for folks either currently getting social security or who would be receiving it in the next decade. You don't seem to have a clue as to what this would really be like...I suggest actually looking at the program (and who REALLY put it forth) before ranting on it again.

Quote:
3. Bush promises to "overhaul" taxes to further take the burden off of the wealthy and either transfer it to the poor and middle class, run the country into debt, or...
Again, you are ranting Democrat talking points. Its a debate whether or not giving tax cuts helps an economy or not. As to Bush taking from the poor and giving to the rich, this is just blather. The tax cuts were across the board...the rich just got BIGGER tax cuts than the poor. Guess what? The rich also PAY more taxes than the poor do.

Quote:
4. Slash the hell out social programs, although he'll still have to find a way to pay for his goddamned
Right. Like that slashing of perscription drug benifits that is going to grant yet another entitlement and cost us over half a TRILLION dollars. Get real. Only of my major beefs with Bush is that he's NOT doing what you are accusing him of doing, but instead adding more social programs and entitlements to the system. Had Bush been a Democrat and gotten the shit he's pushed through on the social side he'd be touted as one of the greatest Dem presidents of all time.

Quote:
5. Wars, which are only beginning, apparently.
Well, I tend to doubt that they are only just beginning, but I'll agree with you that Iraq wasn't the brightest thing he did. One of the major reasons (besides his drunken sailor spending on the social side) that I didn't vote for the man in fact.

Quote:
6. Bush clearly intends to stock the Supreme Court with righties who are bent on thrashing civil liberties.
Again, time will tell here but I doubt it. I think he will stock the SC with strict constructionists. We'll see though.

Quote:
7. Bush wants to pursue "faith-based" government.
Horseshit. You don't have any idea what you are talking about here.

Pretty much goes for your whole post. If you are going to attack Bush (and lord knows there is enough shit to attack him with out there) at least learn what the hell you are talking about first and attack him rationally.


-XT
  #33  
Old 11-04-2004, 01:41 PM
Darwin's Finch Darwin's Finch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Eastern SF Bay Area
Posts: 4,212
Quote:
So today I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent: To make this nation stronger and better I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust.
OK, I'm willing to give it a try. Right now, you do not have my support, nor do you have my trust. Wow me, Mr. Bush.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017