Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

and it goes on and on .........
Bush is stupid Dan Quayle is stupid .Reagan was stupid. Ford is stupid. Nixon wasn't as smart as Kennedy .Ike wasn't as smart as Stevenson. Lincoln was an ape. Republicans have always been called stupid.

---

Holy smokes Tom. No one said anything remotely like that here! :confused:
(But, now methinks you just gave excon some more stuff to gripe about).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The funny thing is no one who has observed Bush from the inside claims he is stupid and not in control . That includes Bob Woodward who has written some pretty critical stuff about Bush ;but had unprecedented access to the White House as he researched his books.

---

The Office of the President is extremely closed off to outsiders. Who on the inside is going to say that he isn't in control? How do we really know that what excon is stating isn't true? So far, I haven't read anything from a completely independent source that can concretely contradict that Cheney isn't really running things. Please understand that I am not saying I think he is. All I am saying is we just don't know the truth as to what is going on during anyone's stint in the White House. Just like with Reagan, we probably won't know how much Bush was really in control until well after his term is over. Possibly after his death. Who knows.

Regarding Woodward, where did you get that he has "unprecedented access to the White House". His book? That man contradicts himself all the time. He is an egomaniac who is a legend in his own mind.

Here is an excerpt from The Bob Woodward version | openDemocracy
"In Bush at War, he was leaked National Security Council documents with official approval and given unprecedented access to top officials, including hours of valuable face time with the president himself. Woodward, in fact, had never had much access to a president before. He confused the interviews with access to truth and perhaps intimacy."


Boy, I was having so much fun here earlier. Tom, don't let excon get you angry. Dance, poke, and jab back at him. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RubyPitbull

Steve, LOL. What else could they do? They are, after all, "diplomats". LOL. Maybe they smiled afterward thinking to themselves "AH, so it is true what Excon has been saying about his President!" ;)

---

They could have responded like King Juan Carlos of Spain did to Hugo when he said, Por qué no te callas? :D

Quote:

---

Excon, I think I have a serious bladder control issue. I had to go change my TWs again after that last post of yours.

---

TMI Ruby, TMI ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

They could have responded like King Juan Carlos of Spain did to Hugo when he said, Por qué no te callas? :D

---

LOL! Too true! Too true! I forgot about that! Wouldn't it be refreshing if they all just spoke out about how they were feeling? :eek: Then we wouldn't have anything to talk and debate about!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RubyPitbull

LOL! Too true! Too true! I forgot about that! Wouldn't it be refreshing if they all just spoke out about how they were feeling? :eek: Then we wouldn't have anything to talk and debate about!

---

Bush and Cheney have done that before, Cheney told Leahy to go "f*** himself," and Bush called a NY Times reporter a "major league a**hole." That caused plenty of debate :D

I was specifically referring to the topic at hand..
"smarta$$". Hehe.

excon, What an embarrassment! The worst part was when Bush was fumbling to shake both hands for the photo op and Abbas whispered a suggestion which was caught on mike that they move from behind the podium so they could be seen!

Bush is either on psychotropic drugs or alcohol... he can barely function public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

excon, What an embarrassment!! The worst part was when Bush was fumbling to shake both hands for the photo op and Abbas whispered a suggestion which was caught on mike that they move from behind the podium so they could be seen!!

Bush is either on psychotropic drugs or alcohol.....he can barely function public.

---

WHAT?? Cmon Choux. Hey, I am a neutral party because I hate all politicians. But c'mon. That is just the kind of speculation I have been trying to discourage here. As to the topic at hand, the Republicans will claim that no one was insulted. The Democrats will claim that they were. How do we know what is going through someone else's mind? All speculation. But to state what you have here about Bush is more than simple speculation. It really is malicious and hitting below the belt. The man was walking and talking. He flubbed some words. He might be a bit uncoordinated but how do you translate that into barely functioning in public? Or state that he is on drugs or alcohol. C'mon, create a good and sound argument as ET has. I am waiting for someone to persuade me through good debate. So far, ET is making the most sense here.

P.S. Excon, do you really believe that?

Ruby,

This is not the first example of Bush's obvious problems. This has been going on for a long time. :)

Have a lovely evening!

Choux honey, too bad you don't want to engage in a logical debate based on facts rather than opinions.

You have a lovely evening too Choux.

*EVERYTHING* in POLITICS is opinion. That's one reason why it is such an incendiary topic.

Anyway, I didn't give you attitude; I don't appreciate getting attidude. Let's just be friends. :)

Have a great evening!

Ummm, :confused: that wasn't attitude. It was a statement and I was wishing you a good evening because you wished me one. :confused: I just read what I wrote -- is it my use of "honey" that upsets you? Excon and others will tell you I use that a lot. It really is meant as a term of affection. I won't use it with you anymore if it offends you.

Regarding opinion, yes, that is true. But stating what you did about Bush's condition should be backed by fact. Without it, it falls under the category of gossip. Personally, I think he is a wanker. But, it doesn't have anything to do with his being a Republican. I think all politicians are wankers. I just like a good logical debate and I was in the mood for one today. Most of these threads never can get too far with that, which is why I usually don't participate.

Here's a big shocker... I'm about to disagree with Chou... again.

Not everything in politics is opinion. Political opinions are about opinion, but certain events within the political field are FACTS. And while I believe that anyone has a right to their opinion, I think that they are wrong when their opinions run counter the actual facts.

For instance, Chou's statements about Bush being on either drugs or alcohol are OPINIONS. That Bush mispronounced Abbas' name is a fact. But one does not necessarily flow from the other and one is not necessarily the cause of another.

Another example: It is a fact that drug use and alchoholism can cause feelings of paranoia. Hypothetically, if I were to say that Chou's anti-Bush paranoia is caused by drug use or alchoholism, that would not be a factual statement, but rather my opinion with no basis in fact. One of these is opinion, the other is fact. And while I may feel that my opinion is correct, there is no proof of it and should not be stated as such.

My point is that there politics is NOT entirely opinion-based and often has facts to back it up. But some would like to ignore facts in favor of opinions. They put forward ideas that the President of the United States is abusing either drugs or alcohol, and state it as if it were fact rather than opinion generated because of a personal dislike for President Bush.

The difference between fact and opinion is the same as the difference between truth and lie. Ignoring facts is a form of lie... lying by ommission. It is morally and intellectually dishonest to state that there is no difference between fact and opinion. And it is lazy thinking as well.

Elliot

Didn't that Whusane guy want to agree to more talks as well while he did as he pleased? Perhaps the Busch guy has trouble with names as a result of his cocaine use... I keep wondering if God intended to send us another burning bush, after all this guy is a flaming idiot! But out of respect for the political system that made him president, I think it is imperative to get names correct!

ET, I have to spread it but I just wanted to state that I love the way you always lay out your case. I am a person who responds positively to, and is compelled by, rational and logical thinking and explanations. You are much more eloquent and capable than I am. Are you a lawyer? You don't have to answer that. I just wanted to state that if you are not, you missed your calling! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oneguyinohio

Didn't that Whusane guy want to agree to more talks as well while he did as he pleased? Perhaps the Busch guy has trouble with names as a result of his cocaine use...I keep wondering if God intended to send us another burning bush, after all this guy is a flaming idiot! But out of respect for the political system that made him president, I think it is imperative to get names correct!

---

It seems to me that some are confusing eloquence with intelligence. It's fairly obvious there are a number of anti-Bush Hollywood actors that are quite eloquent, but are otherwise blithering idiots. I can even think of a few liberal politicians that probably fit the bill - John Kerry, Jimmy Carter, Richard Durbin, Harry Reid, The Goracle...

The pure fact that Bush is in a position that puts him one of the most powerful (if not the most powerful) people in the world makes me think that he should be able to conduct himself in public as an educated person.

When you cannot say the name of a visitor in your home properly, then you had better ask them how to say it before you introduce them to others. Obviously, he did not do that.

This is not the first time that he has represented the country in a way that shows a lack of education or commonsense. Is he the only politician that has ever done that. No. But, he is the one representing us now. And should be held accountable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuscany

The pure fact that Bush is in a position that puts him one of the most powerful (if not the most powerful) people in the world makes me think that he should be able to conduct himself in public as an educated person.

When you cannot say the name of a visitor in your home properly, then you had better ask them how to say it before you introduce them to others. Obviously, he did not do that.

This is not the first time that he has represented the country in a way that shows a lack of education or commonsense. Is he the only politician that has ever done that. No. But, he is the one representing us now. And should be held accountable.

---

Just what do you think should be done to him, in making him accountable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Just what do you think should be done to him, in making him accountable?

---

Being held accountable does not mean immediate consequences especially for an adult. In MY OPINION he has represented the country poorly on a number of occastions, therefore IF he was eligible for the presidency again I would not vote for him. You might have a different opinion which is fine with me. That is what makes this country great. We can agree to disagree.

And the well educated and well spoken Bill Clinton was and is admired worldwide for getting BJs in the Oval Office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

and the well educated and well spoken Bill Clinton was and is admired worldwide for getting BJs in the Oval Office.

---

Wow- see now this is where I have to speak up. Again in MY OPINION regardless of political party the individual needs to be held accountable for their actions. So was Bill wrong, absolutely. Was he admired, probably not.