I'm Beginning To Hate Bush ... - Page 4

Willem · February 2, 2003, 02:50

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
Willem,

I have to disagree with you there. Bush appear confident and determined to do something about the economy. This tends to help. The worst thing he could do is to get on TV and tell the American people that if they didn't start spending money we were going to go into a recession. Even if his policies are bad, its good if the American people believe in them.

IMO the best thing that Bush can do for the economy is reduce the climate of fear that his administration is generating. Wars make people insecure, and that's not good for consumer spending. People are jittery enough after Sept. 11, they don't need to hear the war drums pounding continually as well.

St Leo · February 2, 2003, 03:23

7. Space Shuttle Columbia is destroyed.

Really? I actually like how Bush is handling this one. The nuclear rockest bit a few weeks ago was also good. I hate him on everything else, though.

Though I having nothing against conspiracy theories that claim Bush ordered 9/11, I refuse to believe in him ordering the Columbia disaster. It's just too monstrous an act.

His speechwriters did a good job with his post-event speech and allayed my fears of America doing something stupid.

Drake Tungsten · February 2, 2003, 03:31

Quote:

Though I having nothing against conspiracy theories that claim Bush ordered 9/11, I refuse to believe in him ordering the Columbia disaster. It's just too monstrous an act.

So you can see Bush ordering the deaths of 3000 American in the World Trade Center, but you can't imagine him killing 7 astronauts because it's "too monstrous"?

Shi Huangdi · February 2, 2003, 03:33

"
So you can see Bush ordering the deaths of 3000 American in the World Trade Center, but you can't imagine him killing 7 astronauts because it's "too monstrous?"

Logic isn't his strong point.

Willem · February 2, 2003, 03:34

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
7. Space Shuttle Columbia is destroyed.

Really? I actually like how Bush is handling this one. The nuclear rockest bit a few weeks ago was also good. I hate him on everything else, though.

I don't think he's complaining of the way Bush is dealing with it, or has dealt. I think he's just pointing out that Bush is starting to look like a bad luck charm for the US.

Edan · February 2, 2003, 05:53

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
i blame CLINTON for 9.11.01, not BUSH.

I blame Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

uh Clem · February 2, 2003, 09:12

Quote:

Though Reagan didn't always listen to them. An interesting Reagan story is when most of his cabinet wanted a national ID card. Reagan said mostly nothing as just about everyone argued for it. Then Reagan quipped "Why not just stamp numbers of everyone's arm", but did so in a genial way (indictative of a joke). Everyone laughed, but the President got everyone to see the sanity of his position, even though his cabinet totally disagreed with thim initially.

Today, of course, the response would be, "Hey, great idea!" or "Why didn't I think of that?" or "Thumbs up, Mr President!" Ashcroft would pull out a file showing that he's been working on this for some months already.

VJ · February 2, 2003, 09:33

Quote:

i blame CLINTON for 9.11.01, not BUSH.

If there is someone to blame from the situation (except of BL),
then it's definetily Ronald Reagan, and his short-sighted "the enemy of
my enemy is my friend" -policy.

VJ · February 2, 2003, 09:44

Quote:

I'm not an economist, I don't pay attention to markets and numbers and such. I hear on the news every day, "Recession, recession, recession" so direct your insults to the American media.

Exactly people like you are making me look alternatives for this WWF*-democracy.

WWF, as in World Wrestling Federation, not as in World Wildlife Fund.

jim panse · February 2, 2003, 10:22

sorry for my inconvenience and to destroy your peaceful discussion bur reading the posts in this thread i found something really interesting (i mean the whole thread is interesting but these to things are even more interesting to me. i´ll explain ´em down there).

(1)

Quote:

I blame American foreign policy in last 50 years.

you can´t say it this one-eyed i think. as a middle-european (i´m living in vienna/austria) i have to confess that i´m really really really glad about some topics of the american foreign policy since 1945. especially after the truman administration it´s been clear to europeans that america won´t let us down. to me it seems that the usa has secured western europe during the cold war and i´m thankful for it. some aspects of the last 50 years of american foreign policy i totally dislike: the contras in nicaragua or the build-up of saddam hussein for example.

whatever, i think that especially saddam hussein is america´s own invention in some way. i will not blame america alone for things happening in the world but about some things i´m sure that the us is to blame.

two weeks ago i read an interesting article in one of austria´s major newspapers concerning the unmatched supremacy of the usa. a barber living in boston said that in the days of the roman empire only roman citizens decided what is going to happen and nowadays in modern capitalism only american citizens decide what is goint to happen.

interesting, isn´t it?! i will not mourn after the "butcher of baghdad" but i think some real reasons were better. you know, austria is a "neutral" country but for me it´ll be fine if bush finally shows some "smoking guns" to the international community.

(2)

Quote:

If there is someone to blame from the situation (except of BL), then it's definetily Ronald Reagan, and his short-sighted "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -policy.

i find this really interesting. remember the movie "project peacemaker" with george clooney and nic kidman? after penetrating the CIS defence with helicopters us special forces are able to stop the terrorists with all nukes except one and george clooney asks the atomic physician hanging on a rope if he understands him and got the answer: yes, í understand you. i studied in harvard (that are not the original words because i´ve only seen the movie in german language, so don´t blame me for uncorrect quoting. the sense is the interesting thing about it) and clooney answers: I THINK WE (the usa) TRAINED ALL THE TERRORISTS ON THIS PLANET.

though i won´t blame reagan alone for that - i also won´t blame us imperialism for it - because till ww2 great britain held "the world together" (i guess you got what i mean) and after ww2 not only due to the state bankrupt the uk asked the us for help. and the us helped.

the us who have always critisized "british imperialism" saw that it wasn´t only "imperialism" but also something other. something that "kept things goin´".

the us are in the pole position of the earth and being the best means that the rest want´s to be first and/or you no longer being the best. envy and jealousy are to blame too, not only the us foreign policy.

DuncanK · February 2, 2003, 14:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

IMO the best thing that Bush can do for the economy is reduce the climate of fear that his administration is generating. Wars make people insecure, and that's not good for consumer spending. People are jittery enough after Sept. 11, they don't need to hear the war drums pounding continually as well.

That would be so if Americans believed that there was going to be another terrorist attack because of the war. But I don't think they believe that. I think that the fact that Bush has shown that he is determined to go after the terrorists creates confidence in the American people and they go about spending and investing. Granted the economy is having trouble, but I don't think that it's Bushes fault. I do think that he could increase federal spending more.

DuncanK · February 2, 2003, 14:35

Quote:

Originally posted by jim panse
the us who have always critisized "british imperialism" saw that it wasn´t only "imperialism" but also something other. something that "kept things goin´".

the us are in the pole position of the earth and being the best means that the rest want´s to be first and/or you no longer being the best. envy and jealousy are to blame too, not only the us foreign policy.

Whe stopped critisizing Imperialism around the end of the 19th century when we saw the possibility of becoming imperialists our selves. Then we still critisized European imperialism. We told ourselves that the world would be better off if we ruled it, because we were superior to Europeans. When we did surpass the British though the British were glad that atleast an Anglo ruled country would be there to hold the system together.

Oerdin · February 2, 2003, 15:12

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Bush's economics advisors are telling him that taxes on capital have negative optimal rates. That's why he's introducing these tax cuts.

This jargon doesn't make any sense to me. Either something is optimal or it is not optimal. How does one have negatively optimal rates? In plain English wouldn't that simply mean that some other number is the optimal number? If so they why needlessly complict the matter with stupid phrasiology?

DuncanK · February 2, 2003, 15:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

This jargon doesn't make any sense to me. Either something is optimal or it is not optimal. How does one have negatively optimal rates? In plain English wouldn't that simply mean that some other number is the optimal number? If so they why needlessly complict the matter with stupid phrasiology?

negative optimal is an oxymoron I believe. I don't know what it means either, but I know that there has to be an economist that came up with the term.

Imran Siddiqui · February 2, 2003, 16:21

Quote:

whatever, i think that especially saddam hussein is america´s own invention in some way. i will not blame america alone for things happening in the world but about some things i´m sure that the us is to blame.

If this is true (and it probably is), wouldn't it make sense for the US to get rid of what it created?

Willem · February 2, 2003, 19:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
If so they why needlessly complict the matter with stupid phrasiology?

Hasn't Bush shown so many times now that he can't express any concepts on his own? If it weren't for his speech writers, he'd be the laughing stock of the diplomatic world. Even with other people putting words in his mouth, he still has a strong tendancy of putting his foot in it. It's obvious to me that he's just not capable of thinking on his feet, he needs his advisors to tell him what do to say.

February 2, 2003, 19:09

Actually, he has trouble being articulate except when it comes to themes of violence, war, or vengeance. Then, he can articulate very well.

Willem · February 2, 2003, 19:10

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
I think that the fact that Bush has shown that he is determined to go after the terrorists creates confidence in the American people and they go about spending and investing.

So why is it that in the latest poll, a slim majority don't approve of the unilateral position that Bush is advocating? 52% of Americans want him to work within the UN, last I read.

PS At 52%, that's alot of uncertainty. Obviusly there's an awful lot of Americans who are uncertain and insecure about the current government policies. That's bound to be detrimental to the consumer economy, which represents at least 60% of the whole.

Willem · February 2, 2003, 19:36

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

Whe stopped critisizing Imperialism around the end of the 19th century when we saw the possibility of becoming imperialists our selves.

But you haven't stopped being imperialists, you've just used economic means rather than military. A little more humane than the late British model granted, but hegemony by any other name is still imperialism.

Willem · February 2, 2003, 19:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

whatever, i think that especially saddam hussein is america´s own invention in some way. i will not blame america alone for things happening in the world but about some things i´m sure that the us is to blame.

If this is true (and it probably is), wouldn't it make sense for the US to get rid of what it created?

If I bring a child into the world who later becomes a juvenile delinquent, does that give me the right to end his/her life after the fact? Or should I work with the social agencies that are in place in order to try and turn his/her conduct around so that they can become a welcome addition to the rest of society? Which in this case would involve working with the UN, not against it.

Az · February 2, 2003, 19:47

Quote:

If I bring a child into the world who later becomes a juvenile delinquent, does that give me the right to end his/her life after the fact?

apples, oranges.

Willem · February 2, 2003, 19:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

apples, oranges.

No it's not. In the eyes of the world, Saddam is a deliquent. If the US goes in on it's own, it will be engaging in vigilante justice.

DinoDoc · February 2, 2003, 20:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
it will be engaging in vigilante justice.

Given that the state of anarchy that exists in the international system, how would this be any different fron any other "legitimate" exercise of international law?

Willem · February 2, 2003, 20:36

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Given that the state of anarchy that exists in the international system, how would this be any different fron any other "legitimate" exercise of international law?

By moving against what little we have in place now in regards to international justice, the US risks forgoing any such system from ever taking hold. For the first time ever, we now have an international court to prosecute people guilty of commiting crimes against humanity. Ironically, the US was the only country to object to it's institution.

Imran Siddiqui · February 2, 2003, 21:36

As Azazel said: apples, oranges.

In what society can you kill people and have it justified because they are bullies?

DuncanK · February 2, 2003, 23:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

So why is it that in the latest poll, a slim majority don't approve of the unilateral position that Bush is advocating? 52% of Americans want him to work within the UN, last I read.

PS At 52%, that's alot of uncertainty. Obviusly there's an awful lot of Americans who are uncertain and insecure about the current government policies. That's bound to be detrimental to the consumer economy, which represents at least 60% of the whole.

I think it's very possible that they vote that way in the poll but they have confidence in the economy. After all the poll isn't even about the economy.

Willem · February 2, 2003, 23:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
As Azazel said: apples, oranges.

In what society can you kill people and have it justified because they are bullies?

Who's talking about justifying that type of behaviour?

Why is it that when people advocate working within the UN that you Americans automatically feel that they support Hussein's regime? I don't know of very many people that wouldn't like to see him gone. It's just a question of how it's done.

Imran Siddiqui · February 3, 2003, 00:57

Quote:

Who's talking about justifying that type of behaviour?

That's a suitable causes belli, especially if the bully is taking out your friends.

Coming to the aid of a friend without going to the blind principal first is well established in history.

Willem · February 3, 2003, 01:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Coming to the aid of a friend without going to the blind principal first is well established in history.

I'm sorry but I don't want my world run like some elementary school playground.

PS Slavery is well established in history as well, should we revive that institution?

Imran Siddiqui · February 3, 2003, 01:09

What you 'want' is totally irrelevant. Why don't you focus on how the world actually is?