Would you vote for Bush in the next election?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 8:20 pm

So, your evidence is circumstantial, apocryphal, and unquoted. Well, that answers my question.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 8:32 pm

Cain wrote:Taken single, none would be proof. Take them all together, and you have a pretty interesting picture.

Lenny Bloom wrote:"Phony pretexts - repeated often enough - become real reasons. Things that we know for certain are not true become true in the public mind simply through endless repetition."

Chinese proverb wrote:One person tells an idle story; ten thousand repeat it as truth.

Bethyaga · Post by **Bethyaga** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 8:33 pm

Marius wrote:
Cain wrote:Taken single, none would be proof. Take them all together, and you have a pretty interesting picture.

Lenny Bloom wrote:"Phony pretexts - repeated often enough - become real reasons. Things that we know for certain are not true become true in the public mind simply through endless repetition."

Chinese proverb wrote:One person tells an idle story; ten thousand repeat it as truth.

Say it often enough, M, and I might believe you.

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 9:13 pm

Well, since anything said three times is the truth, let's put the Bethy belief countdown at 2.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 10:06 pm

3278 wrote:So, your evidence is circumstantial, apocryphal, and unquoted. Well, that answers my question.

Yes, you can dismiss it without looking at the evidence. I've come to expect as much.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 10:14 pm

...but they're just media articles. MEDIA ARTICLES. Even worse, it's about something political and you still believe it 100% for gospel truth!? Christ, even I'm not that delusional or naive. I don't care who's side is being splashed on the media, I still take it all with a grain of salt because I don't know how the story has been spun for maximum consumer hook or who's side the media is on today.

The only thing I give credit to are science and medical articles.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Fri Nov 21, 2003 11:08 pm

Cain wrote:Check the most recent Newsweek, dated (I believe) November 17th. I can't access an online copy

You didn't try hard enough. Though it may be because they release their articles for the public after a week or something. I don't know. I just like reading Periscope, usually, and anything from Fareed Zakaria. He always has an excellent alternate view on things.

From that particular article: "Of all the president’s advisers, Cheney has consistently taken the most dire view of the terrorist threat. On Iraq, Bush was the decision maker. But more than any adviser, Cheney was the one to make the case to the president that war against Iraq was an urgent necessity."

So what was it you were saying, again?

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 3:17 am

Thanks, Ang; every time I tried to search Newsweek.com, I was asked to register.

That's one example of many, and the clearest of the lot. After a certain point of blind faith, there's no difference between "trusting someone's judgement" and "rubber-stamping everything he does." Cheney clearly has power vastly beyond the normal role of the Vice President. Start looking at the pattern; nearly every major decision Bush "makes" originates from Cheney's desires and goals and actions.

Gunny: No, I don't trust any single source to have the whole truth. That's why you have to look at a lot of different sources, and decide for yourself.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 6:24 am

Of course, documentation of those sources would be nice. I mean, I agree with the Cheney thing - he has more power than a VP should - but can you give us documented sources?

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 7:23 am

Well, for one, Cheney has been the point man for most of Bush's legislation. He was behind the big energy commission fiasco that let Enron slip through the cracks. Also, when Cheney's opinion shifted, everyone read that as a Bush administration shift. Cheney seems to be speaking for the administration far more than a Vice President should be. People have been suggesting that Cheney is acting as a "shadow president" from the very beginning of their administration, even if he denied it publically. Heck, if Cheney weren't so significant, why was there so much hullabaloo over his heart problems in 2001?

As you watch the pattern emerge, you'll see that every major piece of legislation either has Cheney's or Rove's fingerprints all over it. I see very little of Junior's handiwork, but plenty from those two. It's so bad that there were serious questions about Junior's administration being able to continue to function if Cheney were lost. Not only is that unprecedented, it's a good sign that Cheney is the power behind the throne. Not a smoking gun, true enough, but it's definitely evidence in that direction.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 10:28 am

Okay I guess I can see where you get your concerns sort of. However I guess I feel a quip from Larry King and concerns over Cheney's health don't add up to a bad Charlie Sheen flick.

I guess they can't all be AL Sharpton, eh?

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 7:18 pm

I guess they can't all be AL Sharpton , eh?

Thank heavens for small favors.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:35 pm

Fear my thread dredging...

Serious Paul wrote:2. What do you see in Dean? I honestly know nothing about the guy, but he makes my weasel sense go crazy. So I want somebody who sees something good to tell me about him.

I remembered this from way back when, and though we answered it nicely then... I ran across this lovely article that I think is simultaneously damning and really good for Dean. I suspect as the episodes of this old PBS Public Affairs show are analyzed, it'll help Dean over all as long as his present message and attitude are reasonably in line with what he said back then (and it sounds like it has been). In any case, it's a good read for some extra info on who Dean is and why I think he'd make a good President.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:27 am

Sure a good read. But keep in mind that these tapes are between 8 and 2 years old. He would techincally be allowed to change his mind durring that time wouldn't he? I sure wonder how long someone kept them in their pockets to throw out when Dean started to look to good concidering he says some wacky things on that show like that Bush isn't such a bad guy etc etc ...

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:55 am

By that same logic Mr. bush could be allowed to err on occassion too...*GASP*..could we be agreeing???

I agree they are old, but some people do think that leopard can not change its spots so to speak, and I am sure its insightful just to compare how he has grown, and what has changed.

I still have no like for any of the presidential candidates. Dean makes my weasel sense go beserk. Bush is blase, Kerry is blase, Leiberman is political has been, Clark is a screw ball who obviously hasn't been in politics before-none of the candidates are worth discussing. They are all one side of the same two party coin, and that means Plus Ca Change.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 8:40 am

Your options are limited Paul, time for you to run for president. When all else fails you have to put yourself out there :)

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 8:42 am

I'd be horrible. Especially when I brought all of Bulldrek to west lawn to "Burn some shit and get fucked up".

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:37 am

Not to mention all the incrimination things they could get from Bulldrek to discredit any Bulldrekker wanting to run for public office.

<name>; is it true that on <date> you had a long and public debate on <topic> where you said <something less politically correct>?

Burn some shit and get fucked up? Well as long as we don't inhale we should all be fine :)

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 8:29 pm

Add in using public funds to pay for Bulldrek social events (Thats a great way to say binge drinking...) and well, we'd have good reason to impeach me!

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 2:25 pm

Can't we just call it a fund raiser or a policy meeting? Trying to get in touch with Joe 'not so' Average :)