quote:I think all the intelligent people can agree to it. Obviously I was exagerating.
I hate it when people assume that if someone disagrees with them, then by definition they cannot be intelligent and informed. :angry:
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you ever hear Edwards speak? He was an idiot. He acted like a kid, and he didn't seem cut out for politics. Did you see him in his debate with Cheney? I mean, he looked like a moron. He had no idea how to debate.
And mr porteiro head, I'm pretty sure I was kidding.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you ever hear Edwards speak? He was an idiot. He acted like a kid, and he didn't seem cut out for politics. Did you see him in his debate with Cheney? I mean, he looked like a moron. He had no idea how to debate.
And mr porteiro head, I'm pretty sure I was kidding.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have similar feelings for the reverse situation, when people assume that someone is intelligent and informed simply because he or she agrees with their positions.
(This post is a pronoun mess. )
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if I accept your description there (which, I don't by the way. Edwards struck me as neither strong nor weak during the campaign, overall. On some of his picked issues though, he was very strong.), I don't see how that would separate him from President Bush.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: They'll get their break when a democrat is elected president, until then, it's a constant lesson that needs to be taught over and over.
Thankfully, Bush seems hellbent on teaching America everyday about the ills of electing an unqualified buffoon as their president.
When a Democrat gets elected president and continues the PATRIOT act, all of the Democrats will flock to the president's defense, and say, "Look who's pointing fingers! It was a Republican administration that came up with the PATRIOT act in the first place!"
Then they'll do some quick fixes to make the economy seem like it's doing better, sort of like putting rouge on a corpse, and it'll last just long enough for the next Republican to get into office and get accused of undermining the economy.
I hate reruns.
Cry about it. Presidents since the dawn of the Republic have gotten credit for economic successes and have been ridiculed for economic failures, and many of those have much to do with the actions of their predecessors. It happens to Republicans, it happens to Democrats.
Democrats will, and I believe should, get their chance to propose new ideas and new legislation. The president, with the support of the Republican Congress has made a host of poor decisions. The democrats claim they have a better way, and they'll get their chance. If they don't they'll suffer the backlash, if they do and Republicans stifle it in Congress, they'll suffer the backlash.
You're already crying foul, and we haven't even gotten to the Midterm elections yet.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny, Cheney always strikes me as a robot programmed with Fear 3.0, I don't know how anyone could look like a moron next to CheneyBot.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recalled the VP debate very differently, but to be honest, I wasn't entirely sure. So I went looking for an reputable online analysis. Here's one from the Shields/Brooks section of the McNeil/Leher News Hour.
Here's conservative columnist David Brooks' initial description:
quote:It was a tense debate. Edwards came out right from the get-go and said you're not being straight with the American people. They really went at it. I thought a couple of them landed blows or each of them landed blows several times. I didn't see either of them stagger particularly.
Here's liberal columnist Mark Shields' take:
quote:Two different debates. John Edwards first one-on-one debate, it had been billed that way, absolutely no nervousness. Came out right from the start and was aggressive. And Dick Cheney, I think, the vice president was really knocked back on his heels -- didn't come back until about the third question when he raised the question about John Kerry's votes and voting record and votes on defense matters. This was supposed to be where Cheney dominated. He didn't. He did not dominate on the discussion of that part of the debate. And I thought Edwards did exceptionally well considering it was his first debate.
I don't recall the debate the way you do and they don't seem to either.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Cry about it. Presidents since the dawn of the Republic have gotten credit for economic successes and have been ridiculed for economic failures, and many of those have much to do with the actions of their predecessors. It happens to Republicans, it happens to Democrats.
Democrats will, and I believe should, get their chance to propose new ideas and new legislation. The president, with the support of the Republican Congress has made a host of poor decisions. The democrats claim they have a better way, and they'll get their chance. If they don't they'll suffer the backlash, if they do and Republicans stifle it in Congress, they'll suffer the backlash.
You're already crying foul, and we haven't even gotten to the Midterm elections yet.
It ocurrs to me that this is a part of it all too- the crying foul bit. So many people cry foul so bleeding often, that it's tough to sort out the legitimate complaints. I have a legitimate complaint: the patriot act is unconstitutional... but its like shouting: "I'm Sparticus." My noble message of defiance is drowned in a deluge of similar complaints, until we get everyone claiming that every problem is the worst one in the world. Me included in that.
Here we have alot of caring people with a lot of useful perspective, and we can't get past the way that America, right and left, has taught us how to behave. I'm kinda tired of the debate that defeats itself. Any takers?
Edit: <Music Analogy Ahead>
I host guitar workshops at my Teen Center, as well as have pretty regular jam sessions with fellow musicians in the music department. There is a real problem with practicing rock music as a group, and any rocker or jazzer or even symphony member has experienced the effect.
"Turn the amps up to 11" I use the phrase ironically.
What happens, (especially with amatuers, but actually with everyone sometimes), is that as the practice goes along toward infinity, the chances of one of the players looking at his amplifier to see if the volume goes up to eleven, approaches unity.
It begins at a reasonable volume, and a few things happen. The drums kick up and the drummer has a solo. The bassist or the guitarist insist on hearing their own parts, so they play harder, or they tweak the volume up. Then the drummer returns to his beat like the military returns to a pre-draft state, it stays bigger and louder than it was before, and that's the new low. This keeps going on until the musicians are breaking strings, losing all semblance of tone quality, dynamics, whatever, its all for nought.
My job as a jam session wrangler for these teens is to chase around the room, lowering the volume on the amps. Its tough, but I try to convince the kids that the only way to sound good as a group is to try and get QUIETER than the others. Its shocking sometimes, when they really hear me and listen to that peice of advice, how the experience changes. The music goes from incomprehensible, to sometimes downright lovely, because these kids are LISTENING to eachother, and CHALLENGING eachother TO LISTEN. Its quite brilliant, but its a rare moment. The best groups do it routinely, but if you've ever seen a college or a HS rock band, you have seen the other side of the kaleidoscope.
Music is quite frustrating in this way, and many music majors, myself included, avoid playing music together casually because it is so often a stressfull, not an enjoyable, experience. There need to be ground rules, there needs to be a concerted effort to be quiet and to play the other member's instruments as much as they are playing yours. That is the only REAL way.
oooh. I didn't see this Gem from the first time around.
Let's see Lem... you have to be president to be the worst president ever... and that severly curtails any reasonable list of people to about, what, 43 names? Out of those 43, there are a few top ranking candidates for worst ever. Bush is at the top of that list, for me. The fact that he got elected twice may be cause for a different judgement: Stupidest. Electorate. Ever.
Didn't Nixon get elected twice? Although only once as president, still twice to the white house... and yet he's also in the top finishers for worst ever. Add some names to the list, and see how many of them really dropped the ball in the second term, making them qualifiers for worst ever.
If you really think about it. Hard for some people maybe- the worst president ever would need a few chances to fail. Part of his downfall might even be... gasp... the campaign promises and platforms that get him elected for the second time. All the short sighted stupidities of the first term might just tumble down like a house of cards on top of the administration that slides into the second term by the skin of its teeth, having fought a too-hard battle to stay alive. Seems possible to me... seems like it happened.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
oooh. I didn't see this Gem from the first time around.
Didn't Nixon get elected twice? Although only once as president, still twice to the white house... and yet he's also in the top finishers for worst ever.
Twice for president. Once in 1968 and once in 1972. He defeated McGovern by one of the widest margins on record.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In response to the many, many people (on this thread, but the millions more off it) who's most outspoken criticism against Bush is his speaking ability in public - you would all make great followers of Hitler, who was one of the best public speakers of the century.
I don't see how he can be the worst president ever. I myself have very democratic views. However I still believe Bush is very intelligent. For some of you who critique his intelligence, consider this: he has surrounded himself with some of the brightest minds in America. Look to his advisors and cabinet - Samuel Bodman, Alan Hubbard, and Mike Leavitt just to name the first few I can think of off the top of my head (those may be mispelled).
Additionally, Bush has put more funding to the aids epidemic in Africa during his presidency then the rest of the world combined, including the UN. Some of his steps towards energy conservation are greater than any president before him.
The point I'm trying to make here is that so many people do not look at the big picture. Many people (like myself) very much disagree with some of Bush's war policies, and we base our judgement of his presidency on that. The fact of the matter is that those differences are not quantifiable - they are based on moral implications. Our morals are all different. A good friend of mine completely agrees with the war policies of the White House. Who am I to say my views are correct and his are incorrect?
In the initial Iraqi war, over 50% of the population supported it. Abiding by democracy, the president went to war. Now, of course, less than 40% support it. Does that mean we should pull out? Well, is it practical? Sometimes the President cannot support majority views. For example, I guarantee at least 50% of the population would like the government to give them a million dollars. Is this practical? No. By not "representing the views of the general public" in this sense, is Bush a terrible president? A lot of people's reasoning methods would say yes. Unfortunately when it's not practical to uphold citizens' views, it is labeled as unwillingness, and reflects on the intelligence and compatancy of the White House.
So while Bush may not take into some of the views us liberals have and coincide his policies with said views, he still is doing a lot more for the nation and the world than the our media presents. Unfortunately most of our party does not take the time to do the research on their own opinions of the President and look at the big picture.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In response to the many, many people (on this thread, but the millions more off it) who's most outspoken criticism against Bush is his speaking ability in public - you would all make great followers of Hitler, who was one of the best public speakers of the century.
Sweet Jebus, that's got to be some sort of record.
Hum, First off, don't compare people to Hitler or Nazis without an actual justification. It's one of the 3 classic internet blunders; the first being never get involved in a flame war about land wars in Asia.
Second, if you're going to make looking at the big picture your statement of principle, you may want to consider the multitude of threads on this site wherein posters (many of them participants on this thread) express why they don'tagree with the Bush administration on many things for reasons that go far beyond thinking the President isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and/or moral differences.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
the other classical blunders being never get involved in a land war in Asia, and only slightly less well-known is never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
oooh. I didn't see this Gem from the first time around.
Didn't Nixon get elected twice? Although only once as president, still twice to the white house... and yet he's also in the top finishers for worst ever.
Twice for president. Once in 1968 and once in 1972. He defeated McGovern by one of the widest margins on record.
Oh riight, so its three times to the white house for Nixon? I forgot that it was in his second PRESIDENTIAL term that he, you know, became a top finisher for Worst Ever.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Humchuckninny: In response to the many, many people (on this thread, but the millions more off it) who's most outspoken criticism against Bush is his speaking ability in public - you would all make great followers of Hitler, who was one of the best public speakers of the century.
I like that you invoked the constant in your first sentence, in your first post in your first thread on Hatrack. That's balls. Stick around.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
oooh. I didn't see this Gem from the first time around.
Didn't Nixon get elected twice? Although only once as president, still twice to the white house... and yet he's also in the top finishers for worst ever.
Twice for president. Once in 1968 and once in 1972. He defeated McGovern by one of the widest margins on record.
Oh riight, so its three times to the white house for Nixon? I forgot that it was in his second PRESIDENTIAL term that he, you know, became a top finisher for Worst Ever.
Actually, Nixon had 4 trips--2 as pres, 2 as vp. Couldn't resist the nested quote goodness. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought my justification in comparing people to (neither Nazi's nor Hitler, but simply Germans) was clear. And I think that I was very misunderstood. My initial comment was not primarily intended to offend, although that was a bonus I was hoping for. This is what I was trying to say - Germans in a post-WWI setting listened to Hitler because he was a great speaker, and told them things they wanted to hear. The mistake Germans made (and this doesn't make them bad people at all) was not really comprehending the entirety of what Hitler was proposing, until it was too late and he had gained too much power, and even still they were sucked in by his amazing speach abilities and his promises of wealth and prosperity. I was simply comparing said Americans to said Germans, in that many people were upset with the speaking abilities when speaking ability has no coorelation with morals, beliefs, intelligence or ruling ability. If the most outspoken thing one can say about Bush is that he cannot speak well, then perhaps they would be more comfortable with someone like Hitler, who can speak very well. Hence, speaking ability should not play a significant roll in the judgement of a ruler. Not meant as an offensive statement, but more an eye-opener. Although the insulting nature of it is certainly something I chose not to eliminate
The most specific critiques were of the Republican Controlled Congress, which was briefly touched; a mention of the Patriot Act, and a debate over whether or not someone needed to be elected a president to be the "worst" president. Oh, and about economic recssion being the result of prior generations, but not really directly applied.
Nothing was really delved into, no examples were given, everything was hinted at. I just thought I'd throw in my two cents on the matter - oh, I just reread your post and you mention OTHER threads, not this one. So, in response to THAT statement, I suppose I would say that I'm not going to delve into each person's profiles and lives to figure out what it is they specifically disagree with about bush. But making a broad, general statement "worst. president. ever." is very unmerited. In the other threads I will respond to what is posted there, and hopefully it is more specific than what is here. But I do not generally a.) cross thread, and b.) take the time to look up every post by an author who makes a general unwarranted statement to see if at some point in their career on the forum they indirectly gave purpose and content to their statement. It's like me writing a paper and making many claims, then say "well I obviously backed them up in papers for other classes." Perhaps not the best example, but it still works to an extent.
I should really quit writing posts in stream-of-consciousness format.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hum, The essence of this form of the Godwin is that you take some neutral quality, in this case preferring people who can speak well, that some bad group, normally either the Nazis or Hitler possessed, and use that to claim that other people who possess it are equilivent or can be likened to this group, or, as you said:
quote:you would all make great followers of Hitler
You didn't offend anyone. You just made yourself look foolish. It's funny, not enfuriating.
---
As for responding only to what was written in this thread, were your comments limited to the scope contained in this thread, that would not be a argument destroying problem. However, you blew right past this with your first sentence:
quote:In response to the many, many people (on this thread, but the millions more off it) who's most outspoken criticism against Bush is his speaking ability in public
We normally expect newcomers to spend some time familiarizing themselves with the forum and posters, but it's not like we're super anal about it. However, if you are going to make claims about what the people on the threads most outspoken criticism is, you're going to need to actually read about their criticisms.
This error is made particularly egregious when the main principle you organized your post around was "taking in the whole picture".
You started out with unacceptable ignorance and an argumentative blunder so common and recognized it's got its own name and then zoomed right into hypocracy. All in all, not a particularly auspicious beginning.
The good news is that Hatrack is both a generally welcoming and forgiving place. You screwed up pretty big with your initial post, but, if you want to find a place here, just don't do it again. Or better yet, man up, admit you were wrong and it's like it never even happened.
Nah, that can't be. They coated the whole thing with lead. God can't get through that.
Unless, maybe he got in somehow through an open door or window and now he can't get out. Oh man, God is trapped in the White House! Quick, we need to go to D.C. and let him out.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
