You’re correct. I hope I find a job soon in our wonderful economy before my post count gets too much higher <lol>.
Look, I’m not criticizing anyone’s right to post. I just don’t understand why some people who don’t live here feel they have the right to CONTINUALLY spout off about how WE should do things and who we should vote for. Give it a rest! I think Canada is a wonderful country (been up there a few times and the people have always been nice) but I frankly couldn’t give a rat’s ass as to who they should elect, how their taxes work, how their health system works or in general, how they should run their country. JFK (the first one) said “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”. It seems to me that if you devote your time to dealing with issues related to your own country, you’ll help it a lot more.
iamme:I just don’t understand why some people who don’t live here feel they have the right to CONTINUALLY spout off about how WE should do things and who we should vote for.
Well, they’ve got the right because it’s a free country, yeah? I too admit to feeling a little creeped out sometimes by how passionately Sam seems to identify with the US conservative movement; most people reserve that level of emotional involvement for the political issues of their own countries. However, what Sam does or doesn’t have the right to do here has nothing to do with whether it creeps me out.
*Give it a rest! I think Canada is a wonderful country (been up there a few times and the people have always been nice) but I frankly couldn’t give a rat’s ass as to who they should elect, how their taxes work, how their health system works or in general, how they should run their country. *
Fine, but if you did happen to have a rat’s ass—or even Sam-sized stockpiles of rats’ asses—to give concerning Canadian policies, I wouldn’t like to hear any Canadian suggesting that you didn’t have a “right” to express your views so much.
Because it is the most powerful, and its actions affect the entire world including our own countries, and we believe that if only the US would come closer to the rest of the industrialised democratic world we might do so much more good and so much less harm. And becuase we can’t vote in your elections, so all we can do is express our views on a message board.
As I said elsewhere, I begin to wonder what the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate could get away with if Bush wins this election. Massive tax rises? Kyoto implementation? Universal healthcare? Abolition of the death penalty or the UNSC veto?
Four more years of having to show this aphasic gibbon off as their leader might ultimately bring the US electorate to vote a little more like the rest of the industrialised democratic world, perhaps for evermore.
Duggy Fizzle was right on; this statement gave me shivers. It wasn’t the mention of God that did it, it was just the weird conviction with which he said it. After trying to communicate an understanding/tolerance of Muslim culture earlier in the evening, this seemed a dramatic fumble to me.
[li] This exchange was the second most frightening:[/li]
Again, shivers.
[li] His statement about the Iraquis being deceptive and hiding “things” was so vague; it suggested threats, but we still have nothing concrete.[/li]
I don’t know whether or not these “findings” could be made public, but just dropping the mention seemed like fear mongering and yet another thing the President is unwilling to offer details on.
[li] Unfortunately, while I think the direction Sam Stone suggests for the country’s discussion is worthwhile, I don’t think it closes the door on the past.[/li]
I believe the mission must end in success, but that success in Iraq doesn’t undo going into the country under false pretenses. So, as Apos stated, even if Kerry does as Bush is suggesting we do, I’d still rather have Kerry in the Oval Office making those choices.
[li] Overall, I was once again surprised at what a poor public speaker Bush is. I know some posters have treated this as a non-issue, but I have to say it’s not what I expect of a contemporary leader. He’s too easily rattled, and he is obvious about avoiding questions (e.g. appearing with Cheney in front of the 9/11 commission, make-up of foreign troops in Iraq). Additionally, he’s just unable to say things well. I know others have criticized his handling of the “apology/mistake” questions, but this is what got me:[/li]
In a speech where he has repeatedly referenced military families and made a big deal of his connection to them, his support and relationship with our troops, this just seemed crass. To me, he earned that last question (re: his communication skills) with this response.[/ol]
I didn’t get a chance to watch this last night. I don’t like Bush at all, and I’m sure I would probably have some of the same views as what a lot of folks are saying: that the guy is a fumbling maroon.
BUT, I did go and check out what USA Today wrote. Okay, it’s not world class journalism, but it is about as much as what most Americans will see/take away from this. It’s not dissimilar to what is distilled into sound bites on CNN or Fox or World News Tonight with Jennings/Brokaw/Rather or anything that makes it into the local news channel or papers. And what I saw, rather than stumbling answers to tough questions, was a distilled version of what was said, boiled down until it more or less made sense, that showed a concerned if somewhat (and ONLY somewhat) beseiged president. The Democrats here, or other people who are just concerned that our national leader is a putz, who think this will be a wake up call for the American people are a) overestimating the majority of the American people and b) overestimating the will of the National Media to attack this president (or show him in a true light, per your own POV). Maybe it’s that once this gets past the reports to the editors that the spin is spun a different way. I don’t doubt that Stewart will lambaste the guy on the Daily Show tonight. I don’t doubt that those who are hardcore will see what they want to see in last night’s performance by Dubya, both left and right. But the vast majority of Americans will likely see stuff like:
Or
Or
Or
And that’s about it. And they think, “yeah, that makes sense”. That’s as deep as it gets.
I see Sam’s post has been sufficiently battered… and I guess it might be a question of perspective rather than logic. We see a world in turmoil and Bush stirring trouble… Sam sees a world in turmoil and Bush reacting forcefully against it.
I would say Sam and Bush are looking for a medium term solution with excessive force use… while most would view it as a political struggle against extremist views that are only long term “winnable”. Terrorism isn’t a spontaneous creation of wacko’s… or it doesn’t survive only through these extremists. World politics and economics help boost these guys… and Bush is not fighting the sources… only the symptoms.
I think not even the US can go against the world… with troops alone you don’t change the world. Bush has failed to demonstrate leadership in the international scene and isolated allies and neutrals badly. Bush himself said the UN and NATO must take a greater role… but Bush is the biggest obstacle to that. Cheney especially hates multilateralism. So even when Bush says something accurate his handlers in fact are going against it.
So Sam you see Bush as a man of his word and convictions... I see him as stubborn and prideful.
[quote]
Scariest quote of the evening:
<snip>
Duggy Fizzle was right on; this statement gave me shivers. It wasn’t the mention of God that did it, it was just the weird conviction with which he said it. After trying to communicate an understanding/tolerance of Muslim culture earlier in the evening, this seemed a dramatic fumble to me.[/snip]
So…are you saying that 1) you would prefer that he said it without any feeling or conviction at all, and 2) Muslim culture is fundamentally inassociable with freedom?
These words, put in Kerry’s mouth, referring to any of his positions, would be simple campaigning confidence. Suddenly, because Bush said it, he is hinting at a military coup d’etat.
Seriously, many of these foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Bushies (not necessarily referring to you, o’course, but those who might say similar things) have such “weird conviction” in his inherent evil-ness that they’ll twist anything Bush says into an acknowledgement of his Hitler-ness. (Bush=Hitler! No proof, it just sounds cool!)
Look, for example, at the OP which formed an opinion before it was over, and admitted that he formed an opinion long before the thing had played out. Again, they are so convinced of their correctness that they needn’t bother with some petty things like giving the guy a fair chance.
Incidentally, rejecting Sam’s arguments on the basis of his nationality is narrow minded and essentially bigoted (You don’t live here; your opinion doens’t count.)(That’s an interesting argument against multilateralism, incidentally, since the countries that opposed war were not struck by catastrophic terrorist attacks recently, their opinon doesn’t count). (Am I allowed to make so many consecutive paranthetical remarks?)
The source of an argument does not affect its validity.
Um, hasn’t he kinda already had a fair chance? And fucked up every single thing he’s done so far?
Yes it does. The source’s track record of lying and total incompetence does affect the validity of the argument. Particulary when the same lies and absolute stupidity are repeated as part of the argument.
To get back to the topic that the OP started, I’m a registered Libertarian, who has already decided to vote for Bush. Presidential elections are always about voting for the lesser evil, I just happen to feel that Bush is the much lesser evil. So, I am no more prejudiced than anyone else in the three pages before me. I just happen to be prejudiced the opposite direction than three-quarters of this board, so I’m expecting, and will accept, a good partisan trouncing.
One of my major annoyances with public speakers is the use of Corporate Speak. Politicians seem to be the biggest offenders of this, next to the local sheriff who suddenly gets thrust into the limelight because a high profile murder recently happened in their small town. Bush uses very little Corporate Speak, and I believe that this is because he is prepped and preened very little for these press conferences. In other words, when he is asked a question, it goes no further than his immediate concious. He answers it directly from his concious. The Democrats refer to this as, “Shooting from the hip, like a Cowboy.” I refer to this as, “Being genuine.”
But there was once where this went too far. That was the Mistakes question. He stammered a little, paused, and made excuses for it.
Setting aside for a moment the content of his prepared remarks and responses to questions, from a pure performance perspective it was hideously pathetic.
I interview college students who can better handle tough questions. It was so embarrassing I almost felt sorry for the President.
Politics aside, I want a leader of my country who at least appears intelligent; who can think on their feet; who can project an image of being in control; who can inspire; and can deftly handle difficult questions. I don’t want a President who appears stammering, forgetful, and confused. It is not irrelevant to have the proper leadership skills to lead our country.
I can respect an effective leader even if I disagree with his politics. Bush’s performance last night was about as ineffective as I could possibly imagine.
Bush apologists often state that his speaking ability is not an important issue. I have wondered, though, why it is necessary to elect someone who has “vision” but cannot speak or think on their feet. This is a very big country. We have a lot of citizens. Is there no one out there who could do the job with the same vision and policies yet does not embarrass the country when he speaks?
Ok instead of trouncing your position... lets analyze it instead:
Why is Kerry the greater evil ? I see more reasons to criticize what Bush has done… vs a lot of criticism only against what Kerry said. Even if you don’t like Kerry is Bush so “much lesser evil” ?
So you don’t like Corporate Speak ? You prefer “openess” and “genuine”. Is that a GOOD way of chosing a president ? Is his likability more important than his views ? Yesterday Bush seemed a regular “politician” too me. Avoiding answering questions and going around tough issues.
He apologized for stammering… but not for underevaluating the Iraq quagmire, nor for keeping the UN isolated, nor for failing to stop 9/11 (which Clarke did). I felt Clarke was much more genuine about it. Bush never makes mistakes ?
You sure that’s true? I got the impression that the only thing Bush had going for him was the “good ole boy” image. How he spoke to America’s heartland and didn’t sound like an elitist liberal motherfxxxxx.
athelas:Seriously, many of these foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Bushies (not necessarily referring to you, o’course, but those who might say similar things) have such “weird conviction” in his inherent evil-ness that they’ll twist anything Bush says into an acknowledgement of his Hitler-ness.
Leaving aside the hyperbole of terms like “evilness” and “Hitlerness”, the reason many of us feel especially suspicious about Bush isn’t some “weird conviction”; it’s simply our experience that his Administration is unusually manipulative, secretive, deceptive, and arrogant. Even for politicians.
Many Bush supporters try to cast this as mere partisanship, but it isn’t; it’s a character issue. There are plenty of other Republicans and conservatives (e.g., Bush’s own father GB I, Bob Dole, Tommy Thompson, etc.) whose positions I might disagree with equally strongly, but whom I basically trust to respect the rules and engage honestly with facts. If I don’t trust Bush in the same way, it’s not because I’ve got a “weird conviction in his inherent evilness”, it’s because he’s amply earned my distrust.