Careful Starving, you’re close to using circular logic when you state that if Bush had done something wrong, he’d be nailed for it.
And, the land grabs (I posted a cite somewhere in this thread) were not legal, as they were reversed by a court of law. But does that make them illegal? Nobody was indicted, as far as I’m aware.
So we have an action which was not legal, as the courts reversed it… what are we to call it? I figured it would exist in something of a grey area, so I tried to shade that nuance in. Maybe a lawyer can tell us what the term for such an action would be.
Ahh…the lovely and talented Zoe! How ya been? Wonderful, I hope.
Honestly, I think that is largely what happened. I regard Donald Trump as a self-man man even though he started out with help from his father. And at the time Bush began making his money, he was not a particularly wealthy man…and his father wasn’t particularly known as a businessman either, having been essentially a lifetime diplomat and Ronald Reagan’s vice-president.
My point was that he has not only accomplished much more than most people ever do, but also much more than any of those here who are so fond of calling him a dolt, dunce, imbecile, dumbass…etc. His record of accomplishment and the people and things he confronts on a daily basis far exceed those any of us here will ever know, so how is anyone here in any kind of position to deride his intelligence or his accomplishments.
Since you’re just making unsupported assertions, SA, I think I’ll respond with my own. Although I’d call the part after I mention the Visigoths, etc., to be predictions. My cite? Let’s wait thirty years, and see who called it right.
But very well-connected. Bush’s pre-gubernatorial resume shows a great deal more help than you or I could expect in the business world, help that was indispensible to his success.
George W. Bush was, in short, a crony-made man. It helps to be born to a father with cronies who can help you to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, doesn’t it?
His record of accomplishment in business, had he been born to my father, would have been that of an abysmal failure. (He had essentially no successes of his own making.) From there, it’s doubtful that he would have even had the opportunity to do much in politics.
As a politician, his record of accomplishment rivals that of the leaders of groups like the Huns, Visigoths, and Vandals. It’s hard to say whether history will judge him most harshly on his role in blocking a response to global warming, his fuckup of Iraq, his role as the most fiscally irresponsible U.S. president ever, his role in perpetuating America’s dependence on Saudi Arabia and initiating its heavy dependence on the People’s Republic of China, or his role in creating a self-perpetuating American aristocracy. The Katrina fuckup, his failed response to 9/11, and whatever he does to the Supreme Court will be regarded in the long run as comparative trivialities. He will certainly be remembered as a President who took over the running of America at a time of its greatest ascendancy since mid-century, and all but ran it off a cliff.
No question, “his record of accomplishment…far exceed those any of us here will ever know.”
But for all intents and purposes, you are saying that Cindy doesn’t count, because you have made a public statement to that effect.
The right-wing walks in lock-step. There is no public dismissiveness of even the least of them (i.e., the crazies), and this does make a difference in public perception.
You are indulging in the luxury of personal integrity, and say what you will about the “righteousness” of that, it is something the left can ill afford right now.
But this is not a personal attack, because this is nothing new for the left.
But surely, the right-wing has the advantage in that regard - in addition to it being so much easier to appeal to the baser instincts of humanity, which is the second prong of their marketing methods (i.e., Greed is okay, intolerance is okay, etc.).
On a personal level, I can’t fault you. But in a larger sense, the question is: At what point is personal integrity not worth the cost to the greater society?
The right-wing seems to have found an answer to that. So it remains to be seen what it will take for those left of the current center…
I elucidated further on this point following my initial post by saying that many other people have had these same and even greater advantages and done nothing with them. This includes, but is far from limited to, the offspring of every president I can recall during my lifetime. A great many people have been born to wealth and privilege that far outshines that of Bush, yet none have acheived anything close to what he has.
This is not necessarily so. Many people have risen from humble backgrounds to acheive stunning success, and if somehow given the same qualities he has now he may very well have done so himself. There is absolutely no way you can with certainty that he wouldn’t have.
Again (and boy, dead horses really have to be flayed forever around here), my point was and is that Bush’s record of acheivement is really quite amazing, and that he’s nowhere near the kind of wooden-headed dolt that so many around here like to portray him as being.
I doubt very strongly that you or anyone else here – and I include myself as well – could begin to handle the complexities of his job…either with the Rangers or in the Oval Office.
I’m going to let this lie now because I’m simply having to repeat myself over and over. I’m perfectly aware that most of you here aren’t about to give Bush credit for anything. I can understand that; I was the same way about Clinton. However, our unwillingness to give credit where due in no way minimizes what they’ve accomplished.
No. Bill Clinton’s worst sins do not in any way “absolve” the sins of George W. Bush. Think about this for one minute and you will understand why it does not serve you or any US citizen.
Politics is not a spectator sport. But this is the way they would have you think.
To think this way is to buy into the “party above country” propaganda. Are you really that easily duped, my friend? Think about it a bit more, I beg of you. This idea depends on the duplicity of politicians - the ones who can only gain from a polarized electorate. Please, please think about it from that POV.
Whatever honest differences we may have as fellow citizens, they are not being addressed by the polarized rhetoric we hear day after day. You must know this - you have to know this.
If you can’t or won’t acknowledge that, you fall into the category of one of those trying to mislead the public against their own interests, regardless of party affiliation.
And what do you personally get from it? I ask you to think about that too - and be honest about it - is it merely egotism? To be “right” on a messageboard?
Think about how shallow and vain that objective is when human lives hang in the balance.
I insist that you think about that. Ignore this post, but if you’ve read it, you can’t help but think about what I’ve said. You now know better, and cannot claim ignorance down the road. You might try to claim that later on, or rationalize it in some way, but you will know better.
Damn… welcome to the straight dope zeeny, but I think you’ve just been solidly whooshed. I don’t think that Starving was engaging in the-politics-of-tu-quoque, just pointing out that he was hard on Clinton the way he sees (or perceives, to be more accurate) anti-Bush folks acting.
If you haven’t lurked much, I think you’ll be surprised by the Doper community. And I think it might be wise to try to meet individual posters on their own ground, rather than laying into someone for a trend that you see others engaged in.
I agree that human beings can be surprising - and I am happy about that.
As for the rest - if you are against my generalizations, perhaps you will try to reply to any of my specific arguments. For example: Can the left afford the luxury of personal integrity? Does Starving Artistnot exemplify the product of the right-wing talking points?
Do we (i.e., the people) really have the time or the luxury of being so careful in avoiding generalizations?
I was (and to a certain degree, still am) loathe to give Clinton credit for anything…even for something as obvious as his being smart. This despite the fact that everyone who knew him – including political foes – spoke often of his intelligence. I just couldn’t buy it. I thought he was a lying, superficial, transparent jerk elected only because he was a Democrat…and who, if he were really smart, wouldn’t be so damn obvious in his dishonesty.
You know…kind of like most everyone here feels about Bush. And just like I was wrong about Clinton, in time perhaps some of you will feel you were wrong about Bush. He’s just a man, with a wife and daughters, with a huge load of responsibility for keeping this country’s citizens safe, and trying to do the right thing. Disagree with how he goes about it if you wish, but all the hatred, scorn and derision that is heaped upon him here is totally undeserved in my opinion.
And welcome, zeeny. One of my absolute favorite posters here is a super lady by the name of Zoe. She and I agree on very little, but I don’t doubt one bit her intelligence, the goodness of her spirit, and her zeal for the right thing. You strike me in much the same way, though it remains to be seen if you share her ability to allow your opponents their own beliefs without demonizing them, even up to the point that a genuine and mutually enjoyable friendship can result.
I hope you’re that kind of person, but of course that remains to be seen. Nonetheless, you have impressed me (for whatever that may be worth) with your sincerity, passion and desire for reasoned thought on the part of your adversaries.
Not, necessarily, against them. Just feel they should be used in specific situations rather than cast about willy nilly.
It depends on what you mean by ‘the left’ and whether or not you’re a realpolitik kinda guy. I suppose it also depends on what you mean by ‘personal integrity’, as I do not see a clash between personal integrity and what’s best for society. YMMV.
There are some apologist vectors for memetic infection, yes. I don’t think SA is one of them. He sees the world differently than you or I and draws different conclusions. Oh, he’s wrong, no doubt in my mind about it, but in my opinion I think he came to his conclusions on his own, and not as a Bush Drone. Other Dopers, to be sure, are apologist shills.
“All generalizations are false to facts, including this one.”
To the degree that we whitewash reality and break things up into categories we downgrade our ability to deal with the real world and create a fantasy world of linguistic abstraction.
Painting with a brush that’s too wide may satisfy an urge for coherence or simplicity, but it serves us very little in dealing with the world around us.
He does not. (And thanks to Finn for pointing it out.) I’ve said here several times before that I don’t agree with Bush because I’ve been persuaded to; I agree with him because he’s doing what I felt was the right thing to do to begin with.
My political philosophies and beliefs have existed on a conscious level since the late sixties, and are based largely on my own observations of human nature and the sense of right and wrong that I was raised with.
I know it’s hard for someone like you to believe anyone could believe as I do without being conned into it, but this is not the case at all, and there are many, many millions of people in this country who feel much the same as I do, and largely for the same reasons. I think it would behoove you to acknowledge that those on the other side from you politically are just as smart and just as concerned about where the country is going as you are, and that we are perfectly capable of deciding our positions on these things ourselves. Declaring that we are mindlessly swallowing White House talking points only demonstrates your own ignorance and causes most people not to take you seriously.
So, your assumptions about me - a person totally unknown to you (yet “someone like me” you say) - are relevant somehow, but my suppostions about you are ignorant and not to be taken seriously???
I am not so ungracious that I won’t acknowledge or give thanks for an unsolicited welcome… so thanks (to both you and FinnAgain).
However… nice way of not answering my arguments directly.
I’d really be surprised to find people willing to admit they’d been “conned” into believing what they believe - wouldn’t you? Does that mean it is a rare occurence? If so, seems a pity so much money and time is wasted on propaganda, if it is indeed so ineffective.
Are you sure that’s your final answer, because it borders on parody (i.e., Spoken like a true liberal!).
Yes, it’s my final answer. It was an attempt to get you to define your terms. Without further elaboration, it seems as if you’ve commited the fallacy of the excluded middle, and you’re seeing politics in terms of left/right, which gets in the way of any actual understanding of nuance. The rest of the terms I asked you to define follow a similar pattern; I’m trying to figure out where you’re coming from and what your axioms are.
Oh, and, by the way, I’m not a liberal let alone a Liberal. Just, ya know, in case you were wondering.
This is a difference with a considerable distinction.
By “someone like you,” I meant someone who is clearly not a Republican. (I don’t think I’m in error in this regard. :D)
Your assumption about me, however, went to something much less obvious (the swallowing of right-wing talking points) and which is indeed erroneous, given that had I been asked, I could most probably come up with these same talking points without ever even having heard them first.
I won’t argue with most of that, but how in the world can you guys continue to claim that he is responsible for the rejection of the Kyoto Treaty? Congress decided, unanimously, I might add, to not even consider its adoption during the Clinton administration.
As far as the “American aristocracy”, let’s not forget that there were two Presidents named Adams and Roosevelt, and had Bobby Kennedy not been assassinated or Teddy been a drunk there would have been three Kennedys. Other than the Adamses they are all Democrats.
I swear, you guys come up with some of the weirdest stuff.
