Okay, first of all, it has to be said: He needs a haircut. It looks like he has bedhead.
I haven't really heard him raise any good points or defenses yet.
He keeps either avoiding questions, or giving inadequite answers.
"This country needs to go on the offensive."
No! We don't . Why should we be the bully?
And he seems so angry, as if he's being personally attacked. I suppose he somewhat is, but as President, I would think he should compose himself better.
*continues watching*
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Dude, it's only barely started. Even moreso with your pre-emptive bashing.
Why not wait until the conference is over. Or is getting the first thread on it in more important? (actually, that would probably be perfectly acceptable, as far as I'm concerned)
Posted by CalvinMaker (Member # 2032) on :
There's no reason why I shouldn't be able to comment on what I've seen so far.
It's not as if I was bashing him before he even started the conference.
I watched some of it, commented on what I had seen, then continued watching.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:There's no reason why I shouldn't be able to comment on what I've seen so far.
Your post registered as nine minutes after it began. They hadn't even gotten past introductions.
quote:It's not as if I was bashing him before he even started the conference.
Um, and I quote:
quote:Okay, first of all, it has to be said: He needs a haircut. It looks like he has bedhead.
Personal attacks instead of attacking what had been said, which was barely introductions, which was not any content, which is what you were complaining about.
Patience, noah-san.
Posted by CalvinMaker (Member # 2032) on :
I had seen a decent amount of questions past the introductions.
And the entire reason I attacked his haircut first was because I realized it was important. Which is why I said "it has to be said".
And I still haven't seen him say anything worthwile yet.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Maybe you should stop hitting refresh and just watch the conference.
Posted by Son_of_Priam (Member # 6411) on :
To me it seems as though president Bush isn't very well prepare, he's been stumbling through and avoiding a large number of questions. It's almost like he's repeating the same old answers for some brand new questions
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
The conference is over.
How was IRAQ a major threat to the United States?
WHAT gives the United States the Right to BOMB democracy into the Middle East?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, one thing is clear from that press conference: Bush is on a crusade.
He claims we have a divine responsibility to bring freedom to the whole world, and seems to think war and invasion is an acceptable means (the ONLY effective means) of doing so. He claims that somehow terrorism will vanish if countries become free, although he never explains why or how it will happen.
This is the central problem with Bush's ideology: It's really, fundamentally about an American Jihad - killing the "bad guys", making the rest of the world like America, and doing so with all-out war. If you boil this press conference down, there's very few details on how it will work, but there's a lot of talk and rhetoric pointing to the worldview Bush seems to be stuck in.
[ April 13, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
Heh. You are far too generous.
I find it remarkable that we engage in so few crusades for democracy in non-oil-intensive countries.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
I think you're letting partisanship color your decision about the conference.
He may not have said anything amazing or even useful to the public, but he made it all sound personable. It makes a big deal, and about 95% of why these news conferences happen.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Do you know how great it would be if we could turn China, the world's largest country into a democracy????
Let's go get China!
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
We don't want democracies, we want consumers.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I realized today that I only have two real problems with the war in Iraq:
1) It's a war.
2) It's in Iraq.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I think you're letting partisanship color your decision about the conference.
He may not have said anything amazing or even useful to the public, but he made it all sound personable.
Well, I'm not party-affiliated, so probably not. But I think you have to sift through the personable to find what he's really getting at.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:Well, I'm not party-affiliated, so probably not.
Oh, stop being evasive, Tres. It's really stupid. You know you already had an opinion on both Bush and the topics he was discussing, so stop acting so damn sanctimoniously objective.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I think John is saying, hey, what do you expect from a news conference of this nature?
What is Bush going to do, break down Perry Mason style and say, YES i WAS NEGLIGENT!
Personally, I don't think we can blame Bush or any single American for September 11. But his actions after the bombing... well that's a different story.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think that the reporters really dropped the ball. I mean, this is only the third time President Bush has held a pres conference, it's at a time where there are some many different ways we could go, and those where the best questions that they could come up with? I learned almost nothing new or important. They were almost completely lacking insightful or more importantly specific questions. It was almost a complete waste of an hour.
That being said, I have a few thoughts.
I think that the President accomplished his goal. He definitely came across as both personable and sincere. I agree with some of his fuzzily worded thoughts, like that this a war against a political ideology and not a religion. It sounded good, although I felt that his invoking of a crusader ideology sort of cut down on this a bit.
I felt that three things came out that could/should be detrimental to the President.
1) As everyone is going to point out, he completely dodged the question on why he and the Vice-President were appearing before the 9/11 commission together, despite the commission's expressed desire that they testify separately. I was suprised that they didn't have an answer prepared for that, as it seemed like an obvious question. However, whenever someone dodges a question, especially when it had been clearly restated for him, it makes them look very bad.
2) The 70 number with the FBI agents. President Bush admitted that he had just found out that this number was innaccurate from today's testimony. This bothered me. It seems to me that this would have been one of the first things that should have been looked at when trying to analyze what went wrong to design a better system. That is, how could this have goten past 70 FBI agents? What's that you say, there weren't really 70 agents working on it. Then why the hell was I told that there were 70 agents? etc.
By admitting to the country that he didn't have such basic facts about the problems that led up to 9/11, President Bush seemed to me to be admitting that they didn't really look at these problems during the entire 2 and a half years that they've been obstensively learning from them and building plans based on the knowledge they had gained. If they didn't base their new security structures on defending against what actually happened, I'd be extremely interested in finding out what they did base it on.
3) The persistent denial of any responsibility. I don't actually think that this is going to hurt him, but I'm big into thinking that it should. We have a president to take responsibility. That's his job. This happened on his watch. The very nature of the job carries with it the responsibilty that happens on it. Were he a military commander tasked with defending a place, it wouldn't matter how tricky the enemy was in blowing that place up, he would still be expected to take responsibility for it. I'd like to note again that there is a big difference between blame and responsibility.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Oh, stop being evasive, Tres. It's really stupid. You know you already had an opinion on both Bush and the topics he was discussing, so stop acting so damn sanctimoniously objective.
If you'd give me the credit of not writing off my opinions or the opinions of others, I wouldn't have to call you on it. You already have opinions on Bush too, as do most people on this thread - it doesn't mean you can't be objective and fair.
[ April 13, 2004, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:The persistent denial of any responsibility. I don't actually think that this is going to hurt him, but I'm big into thinking that it should. We have a president to take responsibility. That's his job.
I agree - why couldn't he have just admitted some mistakes for one thing? I think he probably would have come out looking good if he did, provided it wasn't a biggie that he admitted to.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:If you'd give me the credit of not writing off my opinions or the opinions of others, I wouldn't have to call you on it. You already have opinions on Bush too, as do most people on this thread - it doesn't mean you can't be objective and fair.
I challenge you to tell me my opinion on Bush, if my posts have made it so clear. Yours are clear with every post, because it's always the same old routine.
edit: I never said I was objective, and I never said anything about fair. I said you're being sanctimonious and partisan. Just because you're not a registered Democrat doesn't make you not anti-Bush.
[ April 13, 2004, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I'm just very, very confused on people who are buying this "America is much safer now." From what? It's really obvious that IRAQ never posed a threat to the United States.
Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
quote: that if you’re Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can’t be self-governing or free. I’d strongly disagree with that.
Brown-skinned? I also agree with the person who said that Bush is on a crusade. When he said that the almighty blessed us with freedom and its our obligation to spread it the rest of the world, I cringed. Literally. I have no problem saying Im anti-bush because of lines like that.
I also dont care about how either canidate comes across, I vote for the politics behind said politician. Kerry may not be the best, but he is certainly (CERTAINLY) the lesser of two evils.
[ April 14, 2004, 02:09 AM: Message edited by: Jerryst316 ]
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
There is, of course, a somewhat "liberal" (that word is used very flexibly, in that it refers to trying to convince other nations to liberalize themselves) purpose for getting the oil in Iraq; it will make us less dependent on Saudi Arabia and thus give us more leverage on changing them.
This, of course, is just one possible reason, and not my personal opinion.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Equally likely scenarios: we could also power our Abrams fleets with Iowa-grown biodiesel, or tell Israel to vacate Jerusalem on pain of no more free F-16s.
As it is, Saudi oil is well under 10% of what we consume. If we were serious about using that as a bargaining chip, we already would have. Also, as was pointed out in another thread, their (official) government is the least of our worries.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Following Book's train of thought, another "liberal" aspect is that a free Iraq will probably create one of the biggest forced redistribution of wealth in history.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
That's looking pretty far down the road, no?
fallow
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
When can we go after China?
If we could force China into democracy and freedom, the rest of the world would have to follow suit.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: I suppose he somewhat is
"Somewhat" ???
Have you been asleep for 12 months?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
And despite all the sheeplike regurgitation of ill founded and rhetorical anti-Bush propaganda around here, I'm still voting for him.
Strange huh? I gots me own brain.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I understand that perfectly. I'm wondering why you're still voting for him after the well-thought out and well-founded criticism.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Not if yer dining on a daily heapin' helping of sheepish anti-bush fare. Why, that'll give you a case of BSE, maboy.
bushy-spongiformorous-elphantisis.
It ain't nothing if it's nothing sameways short of purty gnarly and purty shocking, if I don't say so my self.
fallow
(edit: deleted frames of comb-over)
[ April 14, 2004, 03:20 AM: Message edited by: fallow ]
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Oduls is voting for Bush because first and foremost he wants the most amount of resources to fight the war on homosexuality!
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I'm actually planning to vote for Kerry now, believe it or not. Not because I like his policies, but because I don't.
If there's ever going to be any chance of positive social change, we need more than a few Republicans in office. We need people to change their attitudes. And our best shot at doing that, I think, is to have a few Democrats get their way for a while.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I've been trying to learn about the issue.. Everything I have learn seems to point to the fact that- This war really is not motivated by altruism... regardless of what Bush says. That Bush really cannot be trusted. That he really doesn't seem to be... that... bright... Prove me otherwise somehow... I'm really trying to see both perspectives..
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This war really is not motivated by altruism...
I am SO tired of people posting comments like this with no backup. At least spin us a wonderful tale of what selfish motive he has for doing this, please. One with more basis than, "Oh, Iraq has oil, so that must be why it's happening."
Maybe even a little evidence to go along with the story?
Dagonee
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That's what I'm looking for. A bit of proof to chase my doubts away... I could be totally wrong. I know very little about politics and I'm hoping to learn.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
My thoughts:
I think President Bush is one of the most Idealistic Presidents ever to hold office, perhaps even more so than Reagan.
This is a good thing normally, showing character and passion.
I just don't agree with his ideals.
And I believe that he is willing to go far for his ideals, but perhaps farther than is prudent or even moral--allowing his staff to mislead the country in order to acheive his ideals.
And like many people caught up in the passion of their ideals, they can not admit failure, mistakes, or errors because that means (wrongly perhaps) that their base ideals were wrong.
The ideal of freeing an enslaved Iraq, removing a sociopathec dictator's regime, and bringing peace, democracy and wal-mart to Iraq is a great ideal. However, the execution of that ideal has not been great. Criticizing the execution does not mean we are critixining the goal, or the ideals behind it.
Personal Responsibility is one of those ideals that President Bush talks often of. It is a shame he doesn't take some personal responsibility for his administrations actions. Its almost as if he sees and admiting of mistakes is a weakness.
This is seen in his attack ads on Kerry, and on anyone who attacks him. His administration digs into their past and points out times where they--Changed Their Minds, as if changing ones mind is a weakness, is in fact, the greatest sin your elected officials could make.
And he refuses to make it.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm too ADD for presidential news conferences. He kept going back over the same point he's already made a half dozen times already and Belle begins wandering...I actually got up and walked around the house. I probably would have turned it except hubby was watching it.
Now, I know that was the point of the whole "Stay on Message!" thing. But I just get so frustrated with the evasive answer stuff. It's not limited to any one politician or party, it's epidemic among all politicians and why it's so difficult to get excited and involved with politics.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Ah, Belle: that is why I liked McCain and Howard Dean (and even Alan Keyes) so much. The party leadership of both parties destroyed all of their chances.
Witness the two-party system destroying democracy as we know it.
As to the President's news conference; yeah, Bush could use a haircut.
...My personal opinion is that anyone who could sit through that entire hour and not be convinced that President Bush is not trustworthy are themselves letting partisanship cloud them from seeing the obvious turmoil that poor decision-making from this administration has caused. The President completely avoided SEVERAL (if not mostly all) of the questions, and most of the reporters were throwing him relative softballs.
In fact I take the conference itself to be the best answer to the question of why he won't testify before the commission without Cheney by his side. I watched Condoleeza and Donald and Karl Rove sitting on the sidelines and they looked like they were praying Bush didn't say something stupid like "American Freedom for the world", which of course he did.
I'm not surprised or even outraged at this because I knew from the State of the Union Address that BushCo wanted the War on Terror to be a Crusade Against Evil where America is Obligated To Spread Freedom. That people don't recognize this kind of foreign policy objective as grossly out of context with the entire history of American geo-political relationships, aside from being unproved, untested, unvoted for and largely unplanned tells me that the only thing President Bush has going for him is that lot's of people have faith in him because of the "deep convictions in his soul" that he thinks are somehow relevant to our national security.
[ April 14, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by PaladinVirtue (Member # 6144) on :
"...despite all the sheeplike regurgitation of ill founded and rhetorical anti-Bush propaganda around here..."
That is sooo true! Look I have some issues with our current president too. But much of what gets thrown around here is pure political propaganda with an anti-bush/anti-current administration agenda, IMHO. And anyone who disagrees, or trys to point out the flaws in the "logical and thought out critiques", is shouted down as being a Bush apologetist (sp?) I can already see you raising the whips...let the flogging begin.
edit: Not to say that is not some very valid reasons to critique Bush and they too are not discussed here aswell. It's is just that there is a lot of bull too.
[ April 14, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: PaladinVirtue ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
NPR (I know, A hotbed of Liberal Activism)made a comment the other week. I forget who actually said it, but it was this:
Attacks on candidates are nothing new. Each attack add tries to point out a flaw or problem with the candidate/victim. However, you can get a rough idea about how truthful those problems/flaws are by the way the victim responds.
If they deny the flaw/problem, with proof, there is nothing to it.
If they admit the flaw/problem--then the problem is real, but the victim will try to show that its not a big problem after all.
If they avoid the problem, answering related but not specific charges, the attack probably has some truth behind it.
If they turn around and attack the source of attack, but don't mention the problem then there is probably something very damageing and truthful in that attack.
Those who have complaints about what President Bush said last night, and avoided saying, have been relatively specific in their attacks.
Those defending President Bush have simply attacked us, not the problems we mentioned.
I don't see us as simply reciting Anti-Bush Attack Ad Propaganda. We are asking for answers, and getting insults in their place.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I challenge you to tell me my opinion on Bush, if my posts have made it so clear. Yours are clear with every post, because it's always the same old routine.
edit: I never said I was objective, and I never said anything about fair. I said you're being sanctimonious and partisan. Just because you're not a registered Democrat doesn't make you not anti-Bush.
And just because the fact that I'm anti-Bush is clear does not mean I'm partisan and sanctimonious, or incapable of evaluating what is said in a press conference as well as you or others do. If you say stuff like that, you should not be surprised or offended when I have to come back and correct you.
I'm not clear about your opinions on Bush from your posts, but I'm fairly certain you have one just as much as I do, so unless you're going to deny this and claim no opinion on any issue you post about just give it up.
quote:I think President Bush is one of the most Idealistic Presidents ever to hold office, perhaps even more so than Reagan.
This is a good thing normally, showing character and passion.
I just don't agree with his ideals.
And I believe that he is willing to go far for his ideals, but perhaps farther than is prudent or even moral--allowing his staff to mislead the country in order to acheive his ideals.
And like many people caught up in the passion of their ideals, they can not admit failure, mistakes, or errors because that means (wrongly perhaps) that their base ideals were wrong.
I think this is very much true. Bush kept referring to "changing the world" in his press conference. He sees himself, and America, as a sort of white knight battling evil (the "enemies of freedom"), I think. Check out this quote from near the end of his question-and-answer session:
quote:So long as I'm the president, I will press for freedom. I believe so strongly in the power of freedom.
You know why I do? Because I've seen freedom work right here in our own country. I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country's gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world.
In my mind, this was the clearest indicator that he sees this as a sort of crusade from the Almighty. Just replace every mention of the word "freedom" with something like "Islam" or "Christianity" and you can see how scary this sort of claim can be.
It's a sort of idealism that sounds good, and could be good in some cases, if the faith in "freedom" he's talking about here wasn't so blind to complexities of the situation and unwilling to change in the face of strong evidence. Freedom is a good thing, and a good thing to be spread, but it must be done carefully and delicately, especially when the peoples we want to convert have different notions of what freedom means than we do.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
The press asked the "Will you take Blame" question 5 times in 5 different ways. Their reason was simple. They wanted a sound bite to play over and over of Bush saying "I was wrong." Bush couldn't give them this sound bite because the Kerry campaign would play it over and over and over and over and over in their ads out of context.
We don't invade China because A> We trade with them a great deal. B> They're large and powerful and the cost would outweigh the benefits (ie: They can NUKE us.) C> They're (very slowly) on the way to democrasy and Capitalism anyway as they see how much it benefits them.
Tresopax, Your views are WELL known and you ARE a partisan. You are an International Socialist Apeaser just like John Kerry.
The "Some people say Brown Skinned people can't govern themselves" was aimed at people, among them people here on Hatrack! who say things like "Maybe they just don't want democracy!" He was calling such people a racist. And he was correct.
And we intervine in non-oil countries all the time. We just assisted in the overthrow of a Clinton supported dictator in Haiti for instance. (I mention he was clinton supported because if I just said Aristeed(sp), someone would pipe up that WE PUT HIM THERE!! So I pointed out who specifically put him there.) It was over quick so no one noticed. But it happened. We also went into Somolia in the early 90s (till a certain president couldn't handle a few casualties and cut and ran, which emboldened the terrorists.) We also went into Afganistan, Grenada and Panama. I dare say we go into more non-oil countries than oil countries. One place we didn't go in the 90s where we should have gone was Rwanda. What, a million Africans died because the president in the 90s didn't care?
[edit: typo]
[ April 14, 2004, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
Ironically, Clinton just last week wrote an editorial in which he apologized for not stepping up in Africa and instead letting all those people die. He said it should not ever happen again.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Tresopax, Your views are WELL known and you ARE a partisan. You are an International Socialist Apeaser just like John Kerry.
Yes, that IS my opinion and I'm glad I've made myself clear (although I might add that you believe appeasement works just as much as I do, although you believe it should only be other peoples appeasing America.) However, the point still remains that if holding an opinion means your opinions can just be written off as unobjective and partisan, then we might as well be quick with it and write off everyone on this forum right now.
I think there's a lot of solid, clear evidence that objectively points to the conclusion that Bush is a guy on a crusade, and that he is a poor president. If you can point to reasons why this is not true then we might be able to find out if I am correct or not. But "you're just being partisan" is not a refutation that will cut it here.
quote:The "Some people say Brown Skinned people can't govern themselves" was aimed at people, among them people here on Hatrack! who say things like "Maybe they just don't want democrasy!" He was calling such people a racist. And he was correct.
That would mean people who say "They want democracy" are racist too.... I think believing the citizens of a country hold a certain opinion is quite different from being racist.
[ April 14, 2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
No Tres, Saying "Everyone wants democracy" is definately NOT racist.
[edit: typo]
[ April 14, 2004, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
listening to the news conference last night, i did my best to put my political ideas aside, i want Bush out of office so i'm much more interested in how conservatives and republicans responded to the conference than i was in gettin myself all worked up. even so, i can't help but feel like he did a rather poor job. i guess i feel like the last question he was asked sort of expressed my feeling overall quite well, he was asked if he felt that he could do a better job communicating his message the the public, considering that his job approval has been going down and he has been largely repeating the same message for some time now. i guess i felt like he was basically unable to really respond to any of the questions he was asked, and resorted to either repeating what he has been saying for the past year or so, or simply dodged the question.
i post this more as a question to those of you who consider yourself conservatives/republicans -- how did you feel about the conference, what were your reactions? i'm not so much interested in the arguments that are going back and fourth about his policies and performance, i'm more interested in how you felt he presented himself and his actions. do you feel better or worse about him as our president after hearing him speak, do you trust him more or less?
[ April 14, 2004, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: kerinin ]
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
i called this by the way. he visibly stumbles around the question. like a squirrel wandering across a shiney penny.
From Sean.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:No Tres, Saying "Everyone wants democrasy" is definately NOT racist.
No, but it is false. It is possible to not want democracy. That is an opinion that people, in fact, hold.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Not as a race, Tres. A few people don't want democracy. But not as an entire people.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
So you maintain that anyone claiming the Soviet Union wanted Communism is a racist? Or that any historian claiming the Roman people preferred an Empire to a Republic is racist? Or that any claim that the historic Chinese ever liked having a monarchy is racist? And so on....
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
You know, this is interesting, because most of the pundits and commentators that are pushing the "ungrateful muslims don't want democracy" meme are actually the conservative ones, to my knowledge.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
John, that's not what I've observed at all.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Xaposert,
Bush said...
quote: that if you’re Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can’t be self-governing or free. I’d strongly disagree with that.
Bush did not say that if any people WANTED another governemtn is racist. Bush said that if people think it is NOT POSSIBLE to have democracy acording to religion or skin color is racist. That is an importnat distinction to remember. If people choose to not have democracy, by Bush's standard, theyh are not racist. To assume someone is uncapableof democracy IS racist.
The true test of the Bush doctrine will be HOW the Irai people choose. If they choose democracy he/America will become justified. If they choose another dictator, it was a serious serious mistake.
I tend to think people get the government they deserve. Bush placed his chipss that they will choose democracy. If they choose otherwise does not by any of Bush's statements make the Iraqi people racist.
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
Dictators are seldom chosen. In order for the people to choose, they'd have to vote. In order to vote, they have to be part of a democracy...
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Au Contraire Unmaker. Dictators are often elected. Hitler, Julius Ceasar, Stalin, Napoleon, even President For Life Idi Amin.
The secret is to corrupt the voting process so that you do get elected dictator, then make sure there is a convient emergency that prompts the old ways of elections be replaced with your safe, stable rule.
(Look for "The Emporer" to be elected to his post in the last Star Wars movie).
One of my fears of the whole "Homeland Security" system is that it could be abused to give us a temporary dictator until the war for terrorism is over. President Bush hasn't gone that route, and I am thankful--so far.
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
You haven't contradicted me at all...
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I think what David is trying to say is that Tresopax seems to confuse the will of the Dictator with the will of the people.
Just becuase the Dictator wants it, doesn't mean the people of the Soviet Union, Red China, Rome or anyone else prefered it. Certainly not in this day and age when Democracy is a tried and true method of government and not just something the ancient greeks did for a while.
(edit: Bad Grammar! No Biscuit!)
[ April 14, 2004, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:The true test of the Bush doctrine will be HOW the Irai people choose.
I disagree. I believe the true test of the Bush Doctrine will be how the TERRORISTS choose to live or die.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Wait, you get biscuits for good grammar?
Hobbes Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Maybe my dog is named Grammar, Hobbes =)
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
Heh... an eternal torture, eh, Meg?
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
We had to slaughter to native indian and enslave the black man to build American "democracy" here in America, if we have to slaughter the native iraqi's and use slave labor to build "democracy" the BUSH/CHENEY/HALLIBURTOIN dynasty will pay that price.
Hell, they'll even do it in Jesus' name.
<THOR>
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
'a vote for war is a vote for peace'
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
My government wants smaller, less powerful government.
Posted by angelily (Member # 6298) on :
I didn't watch it, so I don't know ... Is it true his tie has these little dots on them that moved when he did?
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
I didn't watch it either, but I wish I had done. The incompetent mumbling tells a morbidly humorous tale that would delight any fan of the political forum, as I surmise.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)