How can a human being be the definition of a rhetorical term? Unless you mean that because Bush often engages in non-sequiters, you are justified in committing non-sequiters yourself. If so, what will you do if I point out that Clinton often engages in blow jobs?
Oh, I dunno. Dick Morris seems to think that Bush’s tax cut ploy won him a lot of popularity, and he (Morris) is hardly a right-winger. And by the way, it escapes me at the moment just what nationwide catastrophes, what contintental upheavals and Biblical plagues we suffered as a result of the deficits that occurred on Reagan’s watch. Would you care to remind me?
History’s all around you babe, in the making in the here and now. Just look around. What do you plan to spend your tax refund check on?
And besides, what you guys don’t realize is that busting the budget was the whole purpose of the tax cut. Of course there will be tough battles ahead on the budget. Because Bush realized that if the money stayed in Washington it would be spent. So he deliberately sent it back to force a little fiscal responsibility on Congress.
You know one of the differences between government and private business? Private business has the good sense to contract once in a while when times are tough. The government just gets bigger. In my book, anything you can do to keep the rampant growth of government down is a good thing.
But they are really going to moan and cry about it on the hill when all those little pet projects go down the drain.
On top of that The House in republican control has just given us TRIPLE the requested Bush tax cuts for energy (yes, that is on top of the current tax cut). 80% of it going to energy producers, I guess the profits they got recently are not enough. Compassionate Corporate indeed.
To be fair, now all members of the senate have to stop kidding around. But Bush DID promise that there was going to be plenty of money to justify the tax cut.
Well, time to go to a well-deserved long vacation… “
It’s pretty clear that we need to give incentives for more energy production in this country. What’s wrong with allowing companies to keep more funds for the sake of capital expenditures so that they can expand production? Everyone will have more energy, and have it cheaper to boot. Oh, except that profitable corporations are eeevil–I forgot.
Either way, you’re throwing up another non-sequiter: Bush is evidently pursuing an agenda he believes in, and doing so successfully, regardless of whether you disagree with it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that was the working definition of a successful politician for the purposes of this thread. In the words of the Gipper, “there you go again”.
Since many points I give are suspiciously missing in your replies here is again:
“During the primaries the local Republican party groups were making the point that the problems Texas had were not much the responsibility of the governor, since that position in Texas was a WEAK one.
Also they did many times acknowledge that Bush was not very experienced, but not to worry! He will get capable people for his cabinet. All that means that calling Bush the great politician is not right because:
It is too early to call him that.
By the own words of party members he is not the great politician, but maybe his handlers are.”
And now this: I got zero in my tax refund. Are you acknowledging that Bush bought your vote?
Finally: I am not opposed to company profits, are you saying that recent record profits are not incentives enough? And that 80% of tax cuts going to the already fat energy producers but not to the public is fair?, well you have a funny definition of evil there.
“The House has approved drilling for oil in the Alaska wilderness. Say what you will about Clinton, but he was only interested in drilling in the Oval Office.” —David Letterman
Fundamentally, I agree – Clinton’s sex life and personal indiscretions should never have been fodder for his political opponents. It should definitely not have been turned into a multi-million-dollar “impeachment trial,” complete with overblown admonitions from the Conservative Right that Bill playing hide-the-salami with Monica was anywhere near as scandalous as Watergate or Iran-Contra.
However… given that Clinton’s opponents – the selfsame Conservative Right – did make much political hay out of the whole bruhaha, I don’t see why political observers can’t hold their preferred candidate to the same level of scrutiny. Why should Ken Starr be allowed free rein to run his DC witch-trial for all those years, while we are told (indirectly by yourself) to supress our own doubts when it comes time to asking whether or not George W. Bush violated his commitment to the National Guard and abandoned his assigned duty?
If we (as in he American public) were supposed to be scandalized and shocked at the idea of a president who tried marijuana while in college and diddled an intern while in office, then we definitely need to know if his successor really did go AWOL from active military service, had a serious drinking problem, or was addicted to cocaine. Yet I don’t see Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, or Dubya apologists like yourself eager to push for a Starr-like investigation any time soon.
It’s good for the goose, so it ought to be good for the gander. The problem is that the conservative right never has the cojones to take what they dish out – and the inherent hypocrisy of the Republican party stands exposed as a result.
You are aware that the primaries were a year and a half ago? You did see in the newspaper that Bush ran a strong campaign against a virtual incumbent, winning the home states of both the president and the vice president? You have watched what he’s done in the past eight months as the actual president? What possible relevance does your mutterings about the primaries have to this debate?
If you want me to respond to something like this, you’re going to have to give me a source. Who are “they”? What “party members” are these?
Ah, so it’s not about Bush’s political skill, it’s about your own moral superiority. Oh, well. I think my observation still stands: Bush is making a powerful impression on the ordinary voter by sending him a check in the mail. If that makes the ordinary voter a bad person by your standards, then what can I say?
Wow, you can contradict yourself in the same breath. (Doghouse Reilly pats his hands lightly in sardonic applause.) Please try to understand that in this context, “incentive” is an economic term, not a moral one as you appear to believe. If you release money at point A, more of it will be applied to point B, just like water running downhill. If the government would like energy companies to devote more resources to expanding production, the logical thing to do is to allow them to keep more of their own funds to apply thusly.
And notice that I say “their own” funds–that money is generated by the company out of its own profits. The company earned that money, the company owns that money. It’s not a matter of the government “rewarding” an energy company, since the money doesn’t belong to the government in the first place.
Thanks for the ad hominem attack. I thought I made it clear that I disagreed with Clinton being persecuted over such a trivial affair. I also disagree with the vicious cycle that’s been going on in Washington, with such attacks alternating between the Republicans and the Democrats (Robert Bork, John Tower, Clarence Thomas, and others) and Republicans (Zoe Baird, Kimba Wood, and others). But if we have it your way, I guess these kinds of attacks will continue on both sides of the aisle. And forget about dispassionate debate on SDMB–no, we have to monkey the extremists in our two respective parties and conduct ourselves as irrational partisans as well.
“There you go again” you are conpletely ignoring difficult points in posts.
Ok, fair enough, I can see now that greatness for you is defined by the success of a corporate guy rather than the success of the paying people. I already touched on the greatness or not issue, but you were not paying attention:
“The problem of talking about success is that the question itself is like a push poll: the answer comes out avoiding the whole story. Yes, the way the discussion is framed one has to say that he is successful, but the “liberal” media is not doing a good job of investigating the damage his successes are doing.”
Going to other non-mainstream media sources I see many things that are ignored by the mainstream. “News delayed is news denied” like Orwel said. And since public opinion comes mostly from the mainstream news, the damage that will result of those succeses is reported much later. By that time public opinion is not a factor in stoping a “success”.
I was paying attention, but I thought it would be better to confine the discussion to some meaningful parameters. The way you would have it, Bush must ipso facto be a bad politician simply because you disagree with his policies. I’ve acknowledged that Clinton is a masterful politician, and I think many of his policies were horrendous. Why can’t you display the same intellectual maturity?
I actually did rescue this discussion from the Reagan hijack, I do not think it is fair from you to complain about maturity.
But:
There you go again, you really did not really answered the post:
“Going to other non-mainstream media sources I see many things that are ignored by the mainstream. “News delayed is news denied” like Orwel said. And since public opinion comes mostly from the mainstream news, the damage that will result of those succeses is reported much later. By that time public opinion is not a factor in stopping a “success”.
I didn’t answer it because I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Do you acknowledge that Bush is a skilled politician even though you might personally disagree with his policies? If so, what’s the point of repeating yourself here? If you are trying to say that you admit he’s good but you think his policies are dangerous, fine, you’re entitled to your opinion. What’s for me to answer?
“The problem of talking about success is that the question itself is like a push poll: the answer comes out avoiding the whole story. Yes, the way the discussion is framed one has to say that he is successful, but the “liberal” media is not doing a good job of investigating the damage his successes are doing.”
Yes I do not agree with his politics, you agree with them, That is not IMO the issue: from the beginning I was making the point that the OP was set in a way that only answers that are in Bush’s favor are possible. There can be NO discussion or debate at all and THAT is not showing intellectual maturity.
And if you had notice that, you would have realized that saying “it would be better to confine the discussion to some meaningful parameters” leads only to one conclusion: Bush is the almighty (or a lucky great guy). If one is denied the chance to examine the results of the successes this is not a debate.
IMHO, Bush is a good politician.
Politician menaing, someone who can play the game, get funding from big money, etc.
Good for the country? Heck no!
He can’t even prevent a thread about him from being hijacked by reagan!