posted
Ok..I am newish to hatrack, but I have already encountered many here who seem to get pretty fired up about politcs. Presidential politics specifically. To those who like to discuss politcs I have a opinion to express and a question to pose.
The question is: Do many of you really think that G.W. Bush is NOT trying to do what is best for this country?
I ask his question to try and stimulate a thinking responce from many here who seem to be so caught up in party politics that they are no longer free thinking individuals.
It is my belief that G.W. has had the best interests of this nation at heart. Even if you don't agree with his means, which I personally don't always, his motivation is to better this country. I think that the same can be said of all presidents.
I guess the true inspiration for this topic is that I am so tired of hearing idiotic conspiracy theories about how Bush and his policies are trying to wreck this country. Really, think about that. Why would a president actually try to destroy his nation. How could this possibly be in his best interest? But I have the feeling that many brainwashed liberals are on the verge of beleiving this.
You, and I, may not agree with what our leaders do. And it is our duty to question. But I think it immature and foolish to question whether our president has the nations best interests at heart.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess what we need to do is find out one important thing... in making this nation better, what constitutes the end result? What is better?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he's trying to do what he thinks is best for the country, which may or may not be what the people want or what the Constitution demands. That's the scary part.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure that Mao and Stalin and Richard Nixon all did what they thought was best for the country, too.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really doubt Stalin and Mao did what they thought was best for the country, or at least not more so than they felt was best for them.
As for Nixon, I think it's more mixed but I don't see why you bring up. I know a lot of people strongly dislike him, but some people (like me) think he was a good president.
posted
No, it really does seem Mao was out to do what was best for his country. He was certainly an ideologue, and was exceptionally good at convincing himself.
Bush probably wants whats best as well; however, I don't think he or his current advisors are very competent at assessing that -- the ones which were got fired for daring to speak against him.
For instance, in Iraq there were no adequate provisions for re-establishing basic civil government after ripping out the old system. I don't think Bush and friends meant that this would result in mass looting and violence, I think they actually bought into the BS the neoconservatives spew about government being a burden for most civil purposes, and felt that people in Iraq would welcome the removal of government oppression, quickly getting the civil systems working again. This of course is totally against the evidence in our own country, where we've had vast riots in the breakdown of the civil duties of government.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And as for Nixon, he was a brilliant person, particularly on foreign policy (his domestic policy wasn't so hot). However, he was also a person who had no problem breaking the law (repeatedly) for political purposes, and deserved exactly what he got.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he thinks more in terms of special interest groups. Those groups tend to think more of the short term goals and not the long term goals. Such as cutting down a forest without thinking about the conciquences of such an action.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd have to agree with the special interest groups comment. Bush's administration has a tendency to listen to industry groups without listening to anyone else. Case in point -- energy conservation efforts by the federal government. There have been several studies showing that basic energy conservation steps can save large amounts of money and energy. The federal government has not implemented any new ones during Bush's administration itself, much less considered requiring them for publicly funded buildings and organizations, despite both these studies and the Bush administration's avowed desire to depend less on foreign oil.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Root 'em out, I say! Start with legislation denying them equal rights, then work your way up from there... Thank God for Honest Men Who Do What's Best For Their Country!
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think most politicians honestly believe that what is best for them is what is best for the country.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Bush probably wants whats best as well; however, I don't think he or his current advisors are very competent at assessing that -- the ones which were got fired for daring to speak against him.
What happened to him being a puppet?
I think Mao and Stalin (and Saddam Hussein, though he only killed thousands and not millions) are examples of leaders who didn't have to worry about re-election. As much as we grouse about election oriented decisions, it does tend to keep leader from becoming totally psychotic.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The puppet bit was tongue in cheek given another's implication that all presidents were puppets; and he certainly is one of the most handled presidents of recent history, primarily by Cheney.
To show how easy it is to take things the wrong way, are you saying that if he didn't have to worry about reelection Bush would be another Stalin?
Besides, we've had lots of second term presidents and none of them have been more psychotic than they were during the first term despite no election pressures.
Actually, election pressures are one of the few things I feel is keeping Bush even moderately in line; I tremble at the thought of what might happen in a second Bush term.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard this NPR show the other day, with a writer talking about his new book about the Bush dynasty or something (don't ask names -- I was driving home from work, and it was almost midnight, so there).
The writer was offering a huge amount of information about the Bush family in past and present, lots of it rather unknown I think. What I took away from it was that for four generations, the Bushs have been most active (and interested) in two businesses: defense industry and oil. They've always had a strong drive to solidify their business interests through political influence, including a special interest in the middle east. They've made profits from both world wars. They've been among the strongest supporters of Saddam Hussein until he turned out to be "his own man". They've had close business ties with the bin Laden familiy right up to 9/11. And so on.
They have also created one of the strongest dynasties in American history. A country run by family ties (and others). The only comparable dynasty would be the Kennedys, and perhaps the future Clintons.
Anyway, does anyone happen to know that book and the author?
Posts: 1045 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
