Bush is fear itself!

WYCAT · Post by **WYCAT** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 4:53 pm

If you call this hanging out - no thanks I don't want any.

Look at the difference with BAC's replies. He seems to be more on your side of the ideological debate conservative/liberal but he forms and states an opinion that we can discuss. I find your posts, on the other hand, more filled with hatred and missing pieces - like W's great second uncle drank with Hitler and now look where we are. And I can see from other's responses they feel the same way. Make your point, keep it on track, and we can debate politics all day. But I don't think Bush bashing is political debate even in its lowest form.

WYCAT · Post by **WYCAT** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 4:58 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
jagur1 wrote:Oh I hate commenting on this part of the board....but

A Question only..Do you think the effort to overhaul the Intel Dept. good or Bad news?
I'm kind of on the fence on this one. I like the idea of consolidation of the intelligence agencies to facilitate better communications and use or resources. At the same time, I tend to agree with the philosophy that keeping a degree of independence between the intel agencies and the exec branch (to avoid top-down results and opposed to results based on the best possible information) is a very good thing. In a centralized model, it would be much more difficult to maintain that independence.

I agree - this is a very tough area to work in. Intelligence agencies, by nature, need to operate with a certain amount of independence from the executive branch to be truly effective. It will be interesting to see what they come up with but I agree that reform is probably needed, to what extent I think we need to be careful. Limiting how and by what means intel. is gathered and utilized can render such agencies useless if overmanaged.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:01 pm

Yes, I'm Bush-bashing and I can admit it. You are Bush-imitating and I admit that, too.

Even though it's second nature for conservatives to do this------don't get your undies in a bundle.

OK. Serious debate. I'll give it a try. You can even pick the subject...i.e. start a new thread.

See, my liberal side is coming out....I'm trying to make nice with you. But I feel another hammering coming my way.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:33 pm

Yes, here it comes:

Don't you DARE lump conservatives with Bush. I'm not a Republican nor a Bush supporter but I did vote for him due to the old "lesser of 2 evils" mentality that seems to be the only rule in effect in American politics these days...

Bush is spending money like a drunken sailor and that's WITHOUT the war. Even Clingon didn't attempt to "fix" via the federal goverment all the various things W is trying to...

I despise Bush's domestic & economic policies. The balanced budget is really a farce, for reasons I won't go into here, but I really do feel that W is digging a grave economically that we may never be able to crawl out of.

iaafan wrote:See, my liberal side is coming out....I'm trying to make nice with you.

"Making nice" is NOT a liberal concept; both sides are capable of it and both sides have those who can't or won't. Ever heard of James Carville?

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:25 pm

VERY well said, El Gato.

I think many people of the "liberal/left" persuasion assume that we all think Bush is the greatest thing since the grizzlies invented cheering at football games, which is about as far from the truth as you can get. Personally, I like many things about Bush, but I also find many faults with his policies, although most of those involve his domestic and economic policies.

I think the main point here is that it is much more productive to debate these things with facts and opinions based on facts, rather than just calling Bush "stupid" or whatever.

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:27 pm

iaafan wrote:BozoneCat:

"Broke into to offices" -- Nixon/Watergate.

"Put someone in office" -- brother Jed/Florida 2004.

Yeah, I got the Nixon reference, but I still don't get the Jeb Bush reference. Didn't Jeb have to win an election in Florida, all by himself, to occupy the governor's seat? Also, if memory serves, didn't he win said election by a pretty hefty margin?

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:40 pm

El Gato -- I don't think I lumped Republicans and conservatives together.

That's good that you don't love everything Bush does. I didn't like Clinton that well and didn't like everything he did.

catbooster · Post by **catbooster** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:47 am

I've seen lots of people state that Bush wanted to be President so that he could start a war and let his buddies in big business make a lot of money (as stated by Velo earlier in this thread). I'm really curious whether many people really believe that (or analogous claims made about your liberal of choice).

Personally, I am inclined to believe that both sides generally want the same goals (a strong economy, better world for our children, etc.) but differ on how to accomplish those goals. Add in the house, senate, courts, implementation by various administrative departments, compromise required by the political system, throwing what they think will be a bone to campaign supporters, etc. the whole thing gets off track.

Anyway, I think neither Bush nor Kerry (or others) are evil, manipulative schemers, they simply have different approaches to the same problem, some of which I agree with, some of which I don't. I suspect I'm not the only one who disagrees with both extremes.