bush doesn't know what he's doing

During the election it said on the news that most people in Japan wanted John Kerry to win. I find that interesting because it was just the opposite where a live.
 
I think he's a Popstar. Hes what the majority of the Americans seems to want. So what's there to discuss about? I mean if he's the president then he's the president. That's the point of democracy. 51 % wanted him here you go.

The only problem is that nobody except the Bible Belt and the Mr Blair seems to like him ;)




But I must say President Bush has charisma he's a very photogenic person and he managed to become president - meaning he knows what he's doing.
 
""I can only assume the Americans who checked out the Web site subsequently checked out our winter temperatures and further took note that the National Hockey League was being locked out and had second thoughts," he told Reuters."

Hahahaha, I like that line.

Obviously the article was sarcastic, but really, Bush being a bad president (based on opinion) is no reason to flee the country. It's a situation if Bush suddenly start forcing everyone to become reborn christians and abolished the democratic party when people would start fleeing (or perhaps it would be another civil war?). Hmm...that's a thought (even if it is slightly depressing): what would cause the next American Civil War?
 
smurf said:
During the election it said on the news that most people in Japan wanted John Kerry to win. I find that interesting because it was just the opposite where a live.
Click to expand...

Yeah, many Japanese citizens wanted Bush to win because they felt he would promote stonger ties with Japan while Kerry would promote stronger ties with China.

As for Bush's intelligence, I believe he is a poet who continues to inspire us with quotes like:

"Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease."
"I understand small business growth. I was one."
"Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better."
"The inhabitants of Greece are the Greecians"
"We're going to have the best educated American people in the world."
"For NASA, space is still a high priority."

I could go on but my post would be too long.

This may be a bit off-topic but who coined the term "War on Terror"? A) The current situation doesn't fit the definition of "war" and B) Terror?
 
Foxtrot Uniform said:
Yeah, many Japanese citizens wanted Bush to win because they felt he would promote stonger ties with Japan while Kerry would promote stronger ties with China.
Click to expand...
How underinformed they would be if they forgot Bush senior has valued China at least 13 times as he does Japan. ;)
As for Bush's intelligence, I believe he is a poet...who continues to inspire us with quotes like:

"Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease."
"I understand small business growth. I was one."
"Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better."
"The inhabitants of Greece are the Greecians"
"We're going to have the best educated American people in the world."
"For NASA, space is still a high priority."

I could go on but my post would be too long.
Click to expand...
Although amusing, your remark might offend the International Pen Society members. :? But your quotes are lovely nonetheless.
This may be a bit off-topic but who coined the term "War on Terror"? A) The current situation doesn't fit the definition of "war" and B) Terror?
Click to expand...
I like your question, and looked up wikipedia. To my surprise, the expression had been coined and used by the western media in the 1800's more in sympathy for the Russian "anarchists" who targeted those Tsarists or absolutist political/military/police figures who deserved what they got. When terrorism started to take a bad turn and started targeting not those responsible but innocent civilians, THAT's when the term "terror" began losing it's positive connotation.

Needless to say the harassment, lynching of minority groups leading to the holocaust should have the honors of getting this "ignoble terrorism" as well as Imperial Japan's indiscriminate mistreatment of civilians and POW's, enslavement, rape-n-murder, and massacre would naturally fall within this new definition of "ignoble terrorism." Coming to think of it the average German citizen and IJ citizen under their facist, racist, expansionist governments were also terrorised albeit selectively muderous, and only psychological in general. (Let me find some statistics on that later.)

Hence the current usage of "War on Terrorism" is really a recent spin on the classical 19th century usage that almost reversed the original sense of the word. This is definitely an interestig read.

War On Terrorism
Historical usage of the phrase

Time magazine used the phrase "War on Terrorism" for a 1977 cover story. Legal land warfare is characterized by uniformed combatants, deliberate avoidance of damage to noncombatants, and care for prisoners and enemy wounded. Combatants who do not abide by the rules of land warfare are illegal combatants. Actions which deliberately target noncombatants, with the intent to inspire widespread fear, are terrorist by definition.

The phrase "War on Terrorism" was first widely used by the Western press to refer to the attempts by Russian and European governments, and eventually the U.S. government, to stop attacks by anarchists against international political leaders. (See, for example, New York Times, 2 April 1881). Many of the anarchists described themselves as "terrorists," and the term had a positive valence for them at the time. When Russian anarchist Vera Zasulich shot and wounded a Russian police commander who was known to torture suspects on 24 January 1878, for example, she threw down her weapon without killing him, announcing, "I am a terrorist, not a killer."[8]

The next time the phrase gained currency was its use to describe the efforts by the British colonial government to end a spate of Jewish terrorist attacks in the British Mandate of Palestine in the late 1940s. The British proclaimed a "War on Terrorism" and attempted to crack down on Irgun, Lehi, and anyone perceived to be cooperating with them. The Jewish attacks, Arab reprisals (while Jews considered their attacks themselves reprisals for what they saw as British complacency to Arab violence against Jews, and denial of Jewish rights), and the subsequent British crackdown hastened the British evacuation from Palestine.

A representative article from the period in (New York Times, August 5th, 1947, p. 16) reads:

"The Palestine Government today arrested the mayors of several Jewish cities and townships along Palestine's coast, including Tel Aviv, Nathanya, and Ramat Gan. No reason for the arrests was immediately given, but it was believed that they indicated a new attack in the British war on terrorism. The bodies of the two British sergeants executed by the Irgun Zvai Leumi last week were found hanged near Nathanya."
After the withdrawal of the British, the newly formed Israeli government began using the term "War on Terrorism" to refer to its efforts to crack down on Palestinian and Lebanese groups, both terrorist and otherwise, operating in Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East.

The phrase "War on Terrorism" was used frequently by U.S. President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. In his 1986 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Reagan said:

"?cthe United States believes that the understandings reached by the seven industrial democracies at the Tokyo summit last May made a good start toward international accord in the war on terrorism."
Click to expand...
Time Magazine cover story: War on Terrorism Oct. 31, 1977
 
Wow, thank you for your extensive research, but what bugs me is that Bush and the media use the word "terror" instead of "terrorism."

While the word terror, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, can mean "3. Violence committed esp. by a group for political purposes," I think the global efforts are against the actual terrorist groups.

It's kind of hard to declare war on violence.
 
of topic, but talking about the weapons of mass destruction.... didn't north korea have some weapons of mass destruction?
 
Mycernius said:
North Korea does have weapons of mass destruction, but not much oil. Make of it what you will.
Click to expand...
...and not much stuff to eat either. May I borrow your phrase a moment, Mike ?
Me said:
Iraq did NOT have weapons of mass destruction, but it had a lot of oil.
Click to expand...
Now what might have happened if the two regimes had joined forces ? says conspiracy theory in Washington D.C. Now that's my conspiracy hypothesis. :p

WMD + food + oil + will-to-destroy US hegemony together with its underlings = ????
 
N. Korea does have a weapon of mass distraction...the female cheerleading brigade it sends out at sports events to distract the other teams and their supporters :D
 
I thought that was the a different Asian country that did that. ;)

Doc
 
I think that for being a 12 yo he's quite smart, because he already figured out Bush is a doofus doing a bad job.

I think China is more economically popular than Japan atm.And most probably will be for a while.
 
Well, perhaps that's the reason for bad quality of Intermarriage :D

Elder Bush is not Younger Bush , absolutely , though Elder one is not so wise either.

ps: JREF's web face became so pretty , OKay..! :relief:
 
Actually Ranko, George HW Bush has consistantly been rated by Foreign policy experts as one of the best International presidents in American history, only matched by Harry S. Truman. He helped managed one of the most difficult international transitions since the end of the Second World War, which could have easily turned a lot more ugly than it did. Instead of a massive collapse of the Soviet Sphere of power, we had a mostly peaceful transition with a few hiccups.

George W. Bush is actually pretty intelligent in his own right. Its precisely people who believe he is an idiot who lose to him. When Bush ran against Ann Richards in the 1994 Gubanatorial race for texas, she belittled him and called him a shrub. She lost a 20% lead and her seat to Bush. People similarly wrote him off in the 2000 Elections, and he won again. Finally Kerry attempted attacking his apparent draft dodging behavior, and he lost. The guy is a political mastermind. He got C plus grades at Yale and never failed a course. Thats actually not an easy accomplishment given the difficulty of the school. Just because he makes missteps in his speeches, it says nothing about his intelligence... Stephan HAwking can't speak, does that have anything to do with his intelligence?

Right before the last election, Former President Bill Clinton said something in a interview that I believe people should learn. Politics should be less about attacking the person and more about attacking the policy that people offer. Making personal attacks does nothing, and more often than not just blows up in people's faces. I believe that wholeheartedly.
 
noyhauser said:
Right before the last election, Former President Bill Clinton said something in a interview that I believe people should learn. Politics should be less about attacking the person and more about attacking the policy that people offer. Making personal attacks does nothing, and more often than not just blows up in people's faces. I believe that wholeheartedly.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this very strongly. Bush's policy blunders are a much easier and more important target for criticism than his speech blunders, amusing and numerous though they may be.

Its kind of a sad thing that personal attacks do sometimes prove an effective tool in politics, though as you say it often blows up in people's faces.
 
Foxtrot Uniform said:
[W]hat bugs me is that Bush and the media use the word "terror" instead of "terrorism."

While the word terror, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, can mean "3. Violence committed esp. by a group for political purposes," I think the global efforts are against the actual terrorist groups.

It's kind of hard to declare war on violence.
Click to expand...
I think you mean to say that the "political purpose" of delcaing war on "terror" is flawed; but in what way ? Not objecting to your statement, but is it closer to 1, 2, or 3 ?

1. dishonest, i.e. saying one thing while intending to achieve an alterior purpose. What are the gains from doing it ?

2. unintelligent & pointless, without an alterior motive, but without a good rational nevertheless. This would be utter "political" stupidity on a grand scale.

3. honest, but incompetent, i.e. nothing was achieved except losses, not without a reason, but weak, shady, and prone to genuine cricisim, compounded by incompetence.

The distinction between terror and terrorism does not seem to be significant if we look at the examples shown in the wiki article. The general word formation of affixating -ism is usually meant to signify 'regularity, systematic appilication, as a means of furthering one's end in competing with another -ism group, the idea behind the behaviour that is being repeated.' One could say being political or not was a factor in the distinction between an isolated act of terror and systematic application of terrors in sequence. The presence of a political motive would apply to both the agents of terrorism and anti-terrorism. Still nothing prevents isolated incidents of a terror and an anti-terror from being politically motivated.
 
Last edited:
The main problem I have with Bush is he sees the world through his eyes only. This whole issue about spreading democracy in the Middle East and spreading our freedom, is narrow minded. Simply because he doesn't seem to be thinking about what freedom means to other cultures. This is why it annoys me when says "They hate us for our freedom!" This is simply not true and is just another example of how he sees the world through his eyes only. :eek:kashii:
 
noyhauser said:
George W. Bush is actually pretty intelligent in his own right.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt the possibility that he could possess brilliance, just not showing it in public. Nevertheless I'd have to disagree in that it needs to be properly qualified to be meaningful in the present context. Not to promote the idea that school grades are everything; but that his school grades do have one thing in common with his political success or failure. Human intelligence does not equate a popular vote; that would be a very dangerous idea to promote. A vote is seldom a good measure of intelligence, hence the dangers of demagogy and corruption were constantly raised throughout history. Never before had the US been suspected of a flawed election, which surprisingly happened when he was reelected.

Some comments on language slips and intelligence. Slips of tongue might be a good thing for 2nd class slap-stick comedy, but not even that. Although the general intelligence of a person is not to be derided by isolated speech errors, what is sad is the fact that he doesn't care, which strikes the audience with a sense of disbelief at first, and then offense by being served arrogant langugage. If we are talking about high-intelligence, not general intelligence, that would be required of a political leader of the capitalist world, a certain degree of precision in language is expected only naturally.

I for one detest personal attacks exchanged in political campaigns, yet the public should be encouraged to express their discontent at their representative in the oval office. The mild criticisms found in this thread on the President are full of humour pointing out the crude language habits he has exhibited, which is meant exactly to emphasise high intelligence that is expected of a president of his standing, and to put down lazy talk -- somewhat similar to a post strewn with misspellings, grammatical slips, and faulty logic, not to mention political ideals that do not have a possiblity of gaining universal acceptance. These things are unacceptable, and insulting at best.
 
Last edited:
senseiman said:
Bush's policy blunders are a much easier and more important target for criticism than his speech blunders.
Click to expand...
I believe you made an imporetant distinction. Let us hope we see a transition from the less meaningful to the more meaningful criticisms for the remainder of his public serivice that will assist his decision making resulting in better-planned policies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 4271 times.

Back
Top