Welp, than color me an outsider. I don’t get it, for the life of me. I don’t even understand why we’re talking about re-electing him, rather than impeaching him.
and then
Actually, Desmo, i don’t really think it is. While i am far from agreeing with everything that Lib says on this message board, he has at least shown himself to be pretty consistent in his libertarian beliefs.
I believe that out-and-out libertarianism has many problematic aspects, but at least libertarians tend to have fewer internal contradictions in their political world view than either liberals and leftists or conservatives. Liberals and leftists have to try and balance their professed commitment to civil liberties and true democracy with the fact that they often favour rather controlled and redistributive economic systems. Conservatives often have to face the contradiction of being all for government interference when they don’t like other people’s beliefs or morals, but strongly opposing government interference in the economic realm so they can make as much money as possible.*
The main problem that i have had with some libertarians in the past is that, when the crunch comes and they have to make a choice, they often seem to vote for economic rather than social and political “freedom.” Scratch a “libertarian” and you find a conservative; very rarely a liberal. As a leftist, i don’t agree with that, because while i acknowledge that there is a considerable level of control and even coercion in a leftist or liberal economic model, i believe that the freedom lost from taxing people of some of their earnings in order to makes sure that everyone had the basic necessities is of a different order than the freedom lost through things like the PATRIOT Act and other Bush administration abominations.
Also, libertarians are generally consistent in opposing excessive government spending and large deficits, whether this is done by Democratic or Republican administrations. Conservatives, on the other hand, rail against deficits and spending programs when they redistribute wealth downwards, but cheer them when they redistribute it upward. And that just shows how black their hearts really are, IMO.
On specific issues related to the Bush administration, like the war in Iraq and the growing deficit, i think youll find that libertarians have often been extremely critical of Bush. Every time i picked up a libertarian journal like Liberty in the past year, there were articles opposing the war and criticizing Bush’s economic boondoggles.
I’ve sometimes thought that Lib has been far quicker to jump on liberal and leftist inconsistencies than on conservative ones, and that he’s been harsher and
more ridiculing in his criticism of the former. I was pleasantly surprised to see his take on Bush in this thread.
*Note: broad generalizations in effect here.
Here is what Peggy Noonan had to say about the interview:
And this is from one of his strongest supporters.
I think we’ll know in November.
He’ll either be known as the First In a Great Line of Compassionate Christian Leaders, or the Man Who Took Us The Closest We’ve Ever Been to the Brink of A Fundamentalist Christian Oligarchy.
I’m hoping people will see things clearly.
-Joe, who has never really truly hated a politician before, except Michael McGee (Milwaukee residents know who I mean)
Well, softball questions and lame responses aside, what really bugs me is the fact that at this point, expectations are so low that all Bush has to do is refrain from barking like a dog to be considered well-spoken. In all of these non-canned speaking gigs, it’s his ‘demeanor’ that counts, not the content of his answers. It just sounds like bullshit to me.
Well, then, instead of preaching to us about his attractiveness, and our own disconnects with the “mainstream America” which you feel you understand so much better, why not try explaining just what it is that constitutes his appeal? All you’ve offered us, here or elsewhere, is that he’s against abortion and claims to be for cutting taxes, and that you find his demeanor comforting somehow. Perhaps that really is the level you’re at, and that “mainstream America” is at, but you really ought to be able to do better than that.
Boo, there is unfortunately a fair amount of competition for worst President, and it would be hard to match Harding or Grant. His record to date matches Nixon’s pretty well, though - but without any major accomplishments to offset the corruption (both venal and intellectual) and basic meanness that characterize both administrations. If not for a servile Congress controlled by his own party, the hearings would be well underway already.
Bush is a libertarian’s worst nightmare, isn’t he? He’s a social conservative who spends money like a drunken liberal sailor.
Am I correct that these are unpalatable traits for libertarians? Lib?
I’d give Bush a “B” also. . .for BULLSHIT!.
Not at all. I’ve also mentioned the environment, upon which Bush’s actions seem to fill the left with dread and disgust, but which leave middle America largely unmoved. And civil rights, an area in which Bush is routinely vilified, but which leave many in middle America unconcerned.
But the fact of the matter is that I’m not trying to develop a list of Bush policies and defend them; there are seventy-four other threads for that. I’m merely pointing out here that when someone says, “I swear to God, I don’t understand how anyone can hear this man and think he’s fit to hold office,” they evince a profound disconnect with a vast chunk of the country. The fact is that even if you take the most worrisome poll numbers for Bush, he has a great many supporters. I’m not trying to justify their position – I’m trying to point out that, objectively, they exist. If someone literally cannot understand it, is it wrong to say they are suffering from some form of cognitive block?
- Rick
When he leaned forward to make a point I thought he had the look of an adult telling a fairy tale to a child.
FWIW an update on the no-longer torn document:
So, on one hand I guess this can account for his whereabouts, but on the other hand, his whereabouts was an administrative hoosegow, so perhaps his handlers initially preferred an unexplained absence to having to explain he was being disciplined for skipping out.
Damn straight. And I appreciate you and Mhendo both for “getting it”. I know I’m hard on liberalism here, but that’s just because it’s so overwhelmingly present. You should have seen me at the uber-conservative Pizza Parlor before I left it in disgust. I reckon they thought I was left of Al Sharpton. 
Wish I’d seen this before I posted in the GD thread. At any rate, in that thread I gave Bush a D+. I won’t repeat my reasons here, but this is how I broke it down:
Iraq/WMD: D
Nat’l Guard: D
Economy: C
I assume that would avg out to a D+.
I’m amazed that he still portrays SH as being an imminent threat, even without WMD. I specifically would like to know what makes him a threat. Don’t give me the he had evil thoughts bullshit either. WMD would have made him dangerous, he doesn’t have them, so what else is it?
I was going to quote a bunch of shit he reguritated during the interview, and drive a few hummers through it, but what’s the point, it’s the same old shit.
Anyone who votes for that guy is a fucking idiot.
How many fucking idiots do you believe are in this country?
And how many wise and esteemed people, such as yourself, are there?
If “mainstream America” thinks starting a war with lies about WMDs, running a record $500 billion deficit, alienating our allies around the world, losing 2.8 million jobs in the last four years, and dispensing handouts and sweetheart deals to oil-industry croneys is acceptable behavior for a President, then this country is even more messed up than I thought.
Well, when I sat down to watch the interview I tried to take off all my filters and to set aside the fact that it was an interview with a hate-mongering moron.
The guy assosciated Saddam with terrorists (Those guys who attacked America) & he said his #1 job was providing security for Americans.
He talked compassionately about the “young ones” he had to send to war. He said the economy would get better and the national debt would be reduced.
And he said some of the stuff people said about him was “politics.”
Yeah, I still give him a B- and further acknowledge that events between now and November will determine whether he is re-elected.
Not attacking you county, just what Bush said.
He needs to stop associating al qaeda with SH, they have nothing to do with each other, and even he hadmitted that. To continue to do so is referred to as lying. You listening Rick?
The national debt will be reduced? Sounds great, how about some details?
In response to you Rick, let’s start with how many people believe that SH and Osama are in bed together. Can we agree that they are blind fools?
They are reaching a conclusion unsupported by any evidence.
But they vote.
I’m hesitant to call such folk blind fools, because “in bed together” runs a gamut. I believe Iraq was a relatively safe haven for terrorist cells. I don’t believe that there was any specific tactical or strategic alliance between Hussein and Al-Queda. So what do I answer if asked if they were “in bed together?”
Oh, dude. You probably don’t want to go there.
That’s a hell of a lot of blind fools…
They are a bunch of fucking idiots that’s what they are, you can say it, it feels good.
Unfortunately. The fact that a bunch of people who believe something that isn’t even true can put a person in office is frightening. Especially when the lie they believe in is detrimental to the country as a whole. They believe it, and they support using resources that are best-spent elsewhere. They elect a president who does just that, and we are fucked because of these blind motherfuckers!
Where does this belief come from? Don’t tell me because he was an evil, sadistic man with rape rooms, or because he gassed some people with some weapons that we gave him 20 years ago. (Actually I think it was the Iranians, but why let reality get in the way)
If you want to speculate on what he had or didn’t have or whom he associated with, be my guest. If you are going to start a fucking war, you better have some concrete evidence bucko. You don’t fire a single fucking bullet until your case is airtight. If we had done this correctly, we would have had the respect of the world, no need to go to war, or more importantly, the ability for preemptive attack when we actually need it.
“We’ve had no evidence that Sadism Hussein was involved with September the 11th,” said Bush
You say they had nothing to do with each other, because until proven otherwise, that’s the case.