Draginol Draginol

Losing faith in politics

▼

Losing faith in politics

Or at least interest

from JoeUser Forums

Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee I think pretty much seals it that Bush is really just an idiot.  I've had misgivings about him and was not a fan of his in the past but this nomination reeks of arrogance.

The Roman emperor, Caligula, made his horse a senator.  I suppose now we know that reincarnation is possible though at least Bush's advisors managed to thwart any ideas of nominating a favorite horse to the supreme court. 

Bush's croneyism is possibly the worst in the modern era.  He may be fairly moral in most respects but his professional ethics certainly are in question. 

Frankly, I'm disgusted with Bush.  And since the Republican senators are likely to rubber stamp his nominee, I've lost interest in politics.  We have the Republicans who seem to be eager to appear as the party of the corrupt and the Democrats who are eager to be the party of the screwballs (when they're not bitching and moaning pathetically).

And so here we are. Sigh.

18,151 views 48 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
As stupid as Bush's appointment appears, I have to reserve judgement for one reason and one reason alone: When President Kennedy appointed Robert Kennedy to the post of Attorney General, the latter was fresh out of law school. The joke made by JFK was that RFK needed "on the job experience" (or something to that order; I can't quote the story verbatim).

While Bobby Kennedy may have been controversial, he is widely regarded as a competent AG, at the very minimum. It is quite possible that Miers is up to the task.

If it were in my power to vote on Miers, I would definitely vote "no", simply because she is not even CLOSE to the most qualified candidate for the position. But it's not within my power, and, while I have STRONG reservations, I will have to wait and see what happens.

In the meantime, I'll write my senators and encourage them to vote against her. But I'm not sure what good it will do.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

A Democrat/Liberal who bashes Bush and cites reasons is said to be loony. A Republican/Conservative who bashes Bush and cites reasons is said to be just voicing his displeasure.


This blog is not called "Bush is an idiot" it is "Losing faith in politics". Bush bashers are totally one sided. This is saying that Bush's actions are causing Draginol to think Bush is an idiot but he still thinks the Dems/libs are worse and therefore has lost faith in politics.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: JillUserPosted: Saturday, October 08, 2005A Democrat/Liberal who bashes Bush and cites reasons is said to be loony. A Republican/Conservative who bashes Bush and cites reasons is said to be just voicing his displeasure.This blog is not called "Bush is an idiot" it is "Losing faith in politics". Bush bashers are totally one sided. This is saying that Bush's actions are causing Dragging to think Bush is an idiot but he still thinks the Dems/libs are worse and therefore has lost faith in politics.


that's how I interpreted this article. George is an embarrassment at times, {when he speaks} ha! but for the most part I agree with his decisions.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

I only voted for Bush because I found Kerry so distasteful, and the people he surrounded himself with (like Al Sharpton) literally made my skin crawl.


I can understand that reason.


I fully support his decision to go into Iraq, and I don't give a damn if there were WMDs or not. Eleven years of Saddamn flipping us the bird in regards to weapons inspections while the corrupt despots at the UN raked in billions on their "Oil for Food" scams was reason enough for me.


That is true enough. Your position on that could even be called pro-UN, as the very power of the UN was challenged by Iraq and defended only be the coalition.


I support his 'No Child Left Behind' act, his efforts to privatize social security, and the Medicare prescription drug plan.


I don't know enough about these programs to comment.


However, he has done many things that have pissed me off royally, like proposing amnesty for illegal aliens, spending like there's no tomorrow, and now wasting these Supreme Court nominations on bland, faceless, nobodies.


Yes. But then I think the spending is somewhat understandable. He had to deal with rather many very expensive problems. And nobody else came up with cheaper plans.


I sure hope the Republican Party can offer up a truly Conservative candidate in 2008, if they don't, I wont be voting at all.


How would that help?
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, Bush Bashers could not get away with it, for it would be seen (Dabe) as what it is. Draginol is conservative. As such he is not bashing Bush, he is expressing his displeasure.

It's been my experience here, thus far, that when anyone is critical of the Bush Admin. they are immediately branded 'liberal' or accused of 'bush-bashing' instead of arguing the facts of the matter.

Learn the difference. if you want to be taken seriously, call a spade a spade. That means bash the loons on your side of the fence, instead of being a kool aid drinker.

Oh, and for the record, I dont Guess you listen to Rush Limbaugh? nah, I thought not. You get your news from Airhead America.

I call things as I see them, Dr.Guy and I often have some sort of reasoning and fact to back up my assertion. I'm already bashing loons on my side of the fence, not that that's the mission.

I grew up listening to Oliver "Ollie" North and Rush Limbaugh in the afternoon after school. I really liked Ollie - Rush was a notorious windbag who wore thin after a year. I read his book "The Way Things Ought To Be" and thought it not bad, but later realized he had very little actual data to back any of his arguments.

I was very upset with Clinton on everything from NAFTA to Monica. When George W. came along I thought,
"Wow, finally, we're going to get our chance."

I couldn't have been more wrong. It's evident to all but the most hardcore supporters that the Bush administration really will not protect or advance our interests.

You probably already know how betrayed I feel regarding Iraq and Patriot Act.

Your assumptions about me are wrong and I think this exposes your die-hard commitment to Bush&Co.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
And dont use Col Klink. or Dabe. Both dont cite reasons, they just bash.


But they're the ones who are called loony and I think they have given their reasons.

I'm not referring to bashing his policies, I'm referring to bashing him; calling him an idiot.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's been my experience here, thus far, that when anyone is critical of the Bush Admin. they are immediately branded 'liberal' or accused of 'bush-bashing' instead of arguing the facts of the matter.

Guess you just got a new experience.

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

Your assumptions about me are wrong and I think this exposes your die-hard commitment to Bush&Co.

Not even close, but then while you claim to read, it is evident you dont.  Like Col Klink, you can claim a lot of things, but so far, you have only mouthed the mantra of the loony left.  How else are we to judge you that what you put down here as no one knows you from a skunk.

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top

But they're the ones who are called loony and I think they have given their reasons.

Name one substantive one that is not a rant.  Unemployment is down, Bush bad.  Unemployment is up., Bush bad.  Those one trick ponies dont have reasons.  Anything they can find they blame on him.  Myrr at least proposes a reasonable argument when he is not huffing.

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not even close, but then while you claim to read, it is evident you dont.

You're going to have to qualify that with some evidence.

Like Col Klink, you can claim a lot of things, but so far, you have only mouthed the mantra of the loony left.

Sure, I don't do anything on my own. Get real. Maybe you see anyone as 'mouthing the mantra of the loony left' when they don't fully support this admin. but, come on, you make that baseless accusation as your opinion time and again with out ever explaining it. Care to expound upon it with specifics?

How else are we to judge you that what you put down here as no one knows you from a skunk.

You can take my word for it as that is all you have, you can explore that avenue, I guarantee it will be far more interesting then us simply trading barbs. You can ask me why I feel / think a way and then discern if I'm truthful or simply selling propaganda. We don't have to be narrow here, but if that's easier for you...
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
The viability of our political system depends on the countering forces of our political parties and the beliefs that support them.

The zealotry of both parties has only served to sway the masses as they seem incapable of making decisions based on principles separate from their political ideology.

In the end, these politicians are only a product of the same society from which we've sprung. How different are you really?
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
but, come on, you make that baseless accusation as your opinion time and again with out ever explaining it.


Care to prove that?
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
but, come on, you make that baseless accusation as your opinion time and again with out ever explaining it.


Care to prove that?


Yeah, I'd like to see that too!
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
There's a heckuva lot of assuming & counter-assuming going on here. FWIW.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
I voted for him last term considering that he was the better man for the job (even with all of the crap he does and the stuff I don't at all agree with, he still is the better man for the job... which doesn't say much), but I never really liked him.

Now even republicans are getting the brunt of his interesting... ways of working.

Welcome to my world.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

(even with all of the crap he does and the stuff I don't at all agree with, he still is the better man for the job... which doesn't say much)

That's like saying he is the best chess playing dog there is.

Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad, I think you are over reacting.

One of the concerns that highlighted Bush's first term was a tight knit, behind-closed-doors method of promotion. I would have figured people would have gotten used to the cronyism by now. Hey if the dems can accept it so can anyone!

Remember the criticism levelled at Wolfowitz when he was promoted to the World Bank? People wanted more input than simply the president's good word. Critics felt more capable candidates were available but were never nominated because of presidential nomination. Once Wolfowitz entered the running the other candidates were tossed.

George pulled the same stunt when Condi was hired. I remember vividly the dems voicing out her dubious command over war intel and the risk of repetition should she get the job. If memory serves me correctly she had one of the highest opposition votes in the last 150 years. Brad, I hate to break this to you but she got the job.

Remember the special loop hole in the Bolton nomination? That right there should tell you here is a guy who has a personal agenda. Again there was resistance but the president used his power to push it through.

Don't even get me started on that jack of asses Robertson...

After the fourth time I figured you be used to it. Clinton did it just not so bluntly.

For what its worth I think this is a par for the course recommendation. If something goes wrong we now have an underqualified fall guy/girl to axe. Michael Brown was chosen to head FEMA for a reason and so was Mrs. Miers. Her appointment gets cheap votes because 1) she's a woman in a male dominated court. 2) She stacks the conservative side with the advantage in numbers. 3) She has a close relationship with the president and therefore here appointment endorses his own ideology.

In the world of politics this is a win-win scenario much like when the conservatives kicked the democrats out of congress. White house control, congressional control, and now judicial control.

See a pattern holmes?
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
For what its worth I think this is a par for the course recommendation. If something goes wrong we now have an underqualified fall guy/girl to axe.


But you can't fire a Supreme Court Justice. It's a lifelong appointment. And with her complete lack of experience, predicting how she's going to rule on any case is iffy at best.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's a lifelong appointment. And with her complete lack of experience, predicting how she's going to rule on any case is iffy at best.

Even when they are judges (as we have seen with other 'conservative' appointments), predicting is not an exact science.

Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
But you can't fire a Supreme Court Justice.


45 by citahellion
Monday, October 10, 2005


but they can be removed from the bench, {impeached}
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
It don't matter who you vote for - the government always gets in.
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
you are all idiots ... finally accepting what most of us with FUNCTIONING synapses knew in 2000.

Your Emporer and Fuhrer has no clothes.
Ever seen the movie "The Manchurian Candidate" ... check it out.

Idiots .. the blasted lot of you.
Cry me a fricking river!!!