Re: would you vote for this man?

From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri Aug 29 2003 - 12:26:19 MDT

  • Next message: Christian Weisgerber: "Pointer: Complementary Currencies"

    On Friday 29 August 2003 11:02, Kevin Freels wrote:
    > You know what's funny here is that when things go bad, we blame it on the
    > president. When things go well, we give the president credit. But I hardly
    > thing that the President really has enough power to really change theses
    > things or create these problems.

    Have you been actually listening to what the man says? If he doesn't have the
    power then he certainly doesn't disagree with much of anything that is being
    done. Quite the opposite. If you believe the job has no real power then why
    do we even bother with presidental elections? Ever head of executive
    orders? The president actually has a great deal of power and it can do a
    great deal of damage in the hands of the wrong person.

    > Yes he has spent a lot of money on the military.
    > No he hasn't stepped up to the late on energy.
    > But really, the economy is it's own monster. It was slowing down prior to
    > Bush taking office. Sept. 11 didn;t help matters.

    The point is that Bush administration didn't do anything that helped either.

    > Sept 11 may have been an intelligence failure, but nothing is 100%. How
    > many tips do they really get on terrorist plots? How many turn out to be
    > real? How much can you change an organization like our intelligence
    > community in the 9 months that he had? You can;t shut down the airlines
    > every time someone threatens to attack our country.
    >

    There is more than a little material out there that his administration was
    briefed that something like this, something very much like 9/11, was in the
    works. But in any case his administration has actively suppressed full and
    impartial investigation into much of 9/11.

    > I don't think what we did in Afganistan was wrong. They had it coming.
    > Iraq is a different story, Saddam is a bastard who kills his own people by
    > the thousands. He has needed to go for a long time. The world will be a
    > better place without him. Do the ends justify the means? I don't know.
    >

    I won't go into the rather strange "they had it coming" at this time. Nobody
    said Saddam was a nice guy. But spending the US into oblivion to kick butt
    in various parts of the MidEast to little good effect hardly seems the mark
    of a good leader.

    > Tax cuts are not bad. It's simply a matter of letting everyone keep a bit
    > more of their own hard-earned money rather than confiscating it. If we need
    > to balance the budget, we should be doing it by reducing our expenses.
    >

    Tell it to Bush. He is running the largest deficits ever.

    > I'm not a big fan of Bush, especially the way he invokes "God" at every
    > opportunity, but I think that this "resume" is rather juvenile and only
    > serves to polarize those that already dislike him. The President only does
    > what he thinks he needs to do to get re-elected. That's the way the country
    > was set up. To fix our problems, we need to change the way the people
    > think, not sit around and complain about our leaders.
    >
    >

    Actually it is not at all 'juvenile'. What is juvenile at best is refusing to
    wake up and smell the coffeee. It goes far beyond "dislike". The man and
    his administration have objectively done much that lead to the reasonable
    conclusion of that they are a tremendous menace to this country, to the world
    and to all our fondest extropic goals.

    How do you "fix how people think" without putting out viewpoints such as this
    one you just called "juvenile". It was intended to get people to think and
    question.

    - samantha



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 29 2003 - 12:35:11 MDT