| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 02:43 pm: | 
|
A little while ago some posters here expressed irritability about Black people's tendency to dismiss George W. Bush as a mental lightweight. We had to be wrong, taking Florida personally, what do we know anyway, right? We just got off the boat. What do we know about Amurrica?
Well, Paul O'Neil, who has had personal experience--though in truth, he might, having been canned, have an axe to grind--has come out saying the same thing.
What do you think? Is this bad? Is this good? Does it matter? |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 04:45 pm: |
|
Chris,
I have ('cynically') come to the conclusion that lil' Bush was elected largely because in the eyes of many American's "of a certain type", his father - who was himself the political heir apparent of the 'great' and 'beloved' Ronald Reagan - was 'wrongly' booted in '92. So short of his being a babbling idiot, unless the Dem's could present a universally compelling alternative (another 'JFK'), G.W.'s election was a done deal.
And now, the GOP has doctored up the political discourse in such a way that even the mere notion of suggesting anything other than boilerplate reactionary spiel, is sure to garner derision not only by ravenous Republicans, but also many supposed Democrats.
I said that to say that Bush's obvious/many intellectual shortcomings DON'T MATTER. As long as he surrounds himself with this shadowy (e.g., Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc.) and gullible (e.g., Powell, Rice, etc.) cast of characters who can affect an esteem and respect (that most of them likely do not deserve), repeatedly say the kinds of things that people have been bred to buy (e.g., tax cuts, free markets, God Bless America, the French of 'fairies', etc.), pretend to be an a$$kickin’ cowboy (e.g., Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.) and photograph well; he will for enuff people come off smelling like (guns &) roses.
I suppose O'Neil's actions could have just been an example of "sour grapes" run amok. For a person who's as wealthy/successful as he is to be unceremoniously dump less than 1/2 way thru Bush's presidency, must have smarted something kinda awful.
Still, I don't know. Because to me it is one thing to simply disagree with your President's policy, it is quite another to suggest that the man whom consider the "Leader of the Free World" is incapable of even creating any. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 05:06 pm: |
|
ABM:
Do you really think that a person as vacuous as has been described, yet full of a megalomaniac certainty that he is chosen/guided by God, will not eventually do or say something so far out that even his advisers will not run for cover?
The people--this is the 21st century. We can drop those little deceptions now. Let us not forget who is really in charge here--the big money boys, and they are not fools and will not suffer anybody in there who is going to mess up their money.
I was just reading some excerpts from O'Neil's book about a meeting this crew was in that sounds like a Saturday Night Live routine. Let him go to bed early one night when the big boys need him to do stay up. |
Chris Hayden
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 05:09 pm: |
|
ABM:
I agree he was elected because of some idea of getting revenge for his father (but don't forget it was conservatives who cost his dad the election, voting for Perot), and it was because of vitriolic hatred from the right for Slick Willie Clinton, and because of disgust with the Clinton/McAuliffe/DLC type Democratic party on the left (all those Ralph Nader votes?) |
Beautifulwaterstar
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 06:12 pm: |
|
Lawd.. Leave it up to him and see how the corrupt presidents to come will be in place by way of "divine right". Who will be the next to inherit the throne WOOPS I meant office? |
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 03:04 pm: |
|
BTW: Isn't "The Mind of George Bush" an oxymoron?
HAHAHA!
|
ABM
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 04:28 am: |
|
Chris,
I am not sure that Bush is a "megalomaniac". And I don't think that he necessarily buys (or even UNDERSTANDS) a lot of the swill he's slinging. Much of that crap is just a part of what he's trained to say/do to manipulate the American people.
Actually, to his credit, I suspect Bush is quite aware of and settled and comfortable with his MANY shortcomings and is imminently comfortable with being the puppet president. That is WHY was he was SELECTED to be president to begin with. I think commentary from former Treasury Secretary O'Neil suggests that people who could spot him +100 IQ points are dictating anything/everything to him everything he much say/do.
Do I think George Jr. can walk and chew gum at the same time, I would say, "Probably". But is he even REMOTELY qualified to be President of the US, I exclaim a resounding "NAY".
Remember, this is a guy who after being borne/bred by an esteemed family and attending the nation's finest pre-schools still had to rely on his legacy status to get into Yale, which he then proceeded to party his way through with a below-C average. Then, after 'earning' the haloed Harvard MBA, proceeded to fail at EVERY business he endeavored. That was until he got in on a sweetheart deal to own part of the Texas Rangers. (Gee! I wish my daddy was President of the US so that I TOO can use public/tax dollars to buy a professional baseball team/stadium for 2 cents on the dollar.)
So I repeat, I think The UNcurious George is merely a sock puppet for wealthy and considerably smarter interests.
I question whether Nader REALLY lost the election for Gore. For one, I think many of those who voted for Nader were tree-huggin' kooks who likely wouldn't have voted for either Bush or Gore (I'd be interested in know how many Nader voters were first time voters). Also, 2000 election proved one could garner a major of the actual votes tendered yet still lose the electoral college count. So, you can't look at the total number of votes that Nader got then assume that had Gore gotten those votes he would have automatically won. You have to first assume that all of Nader's people would have voted for Gore (which certainly isn't true). Then you have to look at each state and see whether Nader had enuff votes that when added to those of Gore's would have overtaken those of Bush in some of the states with significant numbers of electoral college votes.
I wonder has anyone every made a serious attempt to analyze Nader's effect in 11/00.
And I certainly don't think conservatives "hate" Clinton. Far from it actually. They are as smitten by him as Clinton's supporters are, if not more so. I mean, if you listen to a lot of the vitriolic rhetoric, much of it is still aimed a Clinton. And why, because Clinton was a STAR. His enemies knew as well as, maybe even better than, his friends. His detractors knew there was so much starlight surrounding Clinton that whether you were with him or against him, if you mixed it up with him, you were bound to get some kinda light shining down on you.
Check it. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and the myriad other right-wide whacko made out like bandits during Clinton's reign. When else could a blowhard no-talent like Limbaugh make $25M per annum (on radio for Christ Sake!).
Actually, I think that many of Clintons' bashers have such a secretive feeling of indebtedness to him that, if they could do it without ANYONE finding out about it, 1/2 of all the jokers who have been running Slick Willie down over the last 12 years wouldn't mind 'saluting' Clinton in much the same manner that Monica Lewinsky did. |
Gene_6pack
Newbie Poster
Username: Gene_6pack
Post Number: 2
Registered: 02-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 09, 2004 - 02:16 pm: |
|
You can't fly a jet fighter with BS. |
|
Email This Page