Bush's supreme court nominees

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Constantly criticizing stupid things only creates useless noise, making it that much harder for constructive ideas to get through.

So we can all assume you're writing the president, sending your solutions directly to the top, eh? 
Otherwise, we're just *gasp* chatting on an arcade forums about politics!!! OH NOES!!!

"I am simply tired of watching people run around yelling "bush bad bush bad bush bad weeeeeeeeeee"

I really think you're overstating this.

I have to ask, you *ARE* you talking about then? Can you provide examples to all this caterwauling? If it's so *EXTREME* you should be able to provide at least 20 examples, right here and now!!!

I mean, come on....get over that part. There *is* such a thing as constructive criticism. It is a form of solution orienteering. I've heard plenty of viable solutions for just about every single issue this country faces. If you can't ignore the things you perceive as "unhelpful", then that is seriously YOUR PROBLEM. Bush, and his administration have made so many horrendous decisions, that have had such an enormously negative impact on the direct day-to-day of people's lives that, sometimes, it's healthy and productive to just get it out of your system.
 
If you're happy not doing that, fine. Stop being such a wet blanket. Lead by example then, and only provide solutions.

mrC

[ChadTower]

Stingray:  You have two more instances until you have exhausted your allotment.

What I am doing is waiting for the next election, since that is my allocated chance to make a difference.

[Dartful Dodger]

You seem to think that's over. Bush's approval rating is at 30%...the VAST majority of Americans disapprove of the War in Iraq. So how am I wrong?

War on Iraq, was started before the election.

The VAST majority Americans voted for BUSH.

There isn't enough space on the arcade controls site to explain how you are wrong.

Hopefully this post explains how your post was wrong.

[Stingray]

The VAST majority Americans voted for BUSH.

Wasn't it something like 52%?

-S

[ChadTower]

Bush won a huge majority of counties, I think, so the popular vote this time was pretty clear.

More than ever, it was choosing between crap and poop.

[Stingray]

51% of the popular vote according to The Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2004/

-S

[mr.Curmudgeon]

War on Iraq, was started before the election.
The VAST majority Americans voted for BUSH.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that people can, apparently, change their minds. Not that I expect you to do that or anything...it's pretty clear you're going down with the ship. You zealot.

51% does not equal VAST, nor does it equal a mandate, nor does it equal "political capital", even for the most mathematically challenged individuals. Sorry. It's a sqeaker...and nothing to be proud of. Should have humbled him, but, nah....he's about as thick as a brick.

Hopefully this post explains how your post was wrong.

Nope. Please try again.

mrC

[ChadTower]

51% of the popular vote according to The Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2004/

-S

So, what that says is that Bush had a 3% margin of victory in the popular vote, with a likely error margin of 75% + some donuts.

Of course, the popular vote is of no relevance in Constitutional terms.

I think it's safe to say that Bush himself won, but the world was going to ultimately lose no matter which candidate won that election.

[DrewKaree]

You seem to think that's over. Bush's approval rating is at 30%

Well NOW how is he gonna win the next election?

I think the real problem no one's addressing is that MrC's message simply isn't getting out to enough people...well, at least the dunce population of voters in the last election.  We's all breedin' lahk ra-bits!  Hyuck!

Keep fighting the fight.  Somehow you'll put the nail in Bush's coffin.  It might take another 3 years, but you'll sure as heck get him out!  w00t!

Seems a perfect thread to add these!

[Stingray]

Of course, the popular vote is of no relevance in Constitutional terms.

Obviously no argument here. I was only arguing about what qualifies as a VAST majority.

-S

[ChadTower]

Even the popular vote is irrelevant as to majority since it itself only represents a minority of Americans.

The majority cannot be determined by a vote until the majority actually votes.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Well NOW how is he gonna win the next election?

Bush is the leader of the GOP....in that context, his popularity and leadership (and lack thereof) matters.

The Republican leaders of BOTH the HOUSE and the SENATE are currently under investigation, one has three indictments against him (DeLay), the other is in trouble for insider trading (of between 3-6 million). Bush's right-hand man, Rove, is directly implicated in a treasonous scandal, outing an undercover CIA agent in retaliation for her husbands efforts in exposing the lies leading up to a war that has, so far, cost us $400 BILLION dollars and 2000 lives. With no end in sight. A top GOP lobbyist is under federal investigation (Abramoff) and has been linked to several murders, as of late. A top GOP lobbyists, directly connected to Abramoff and DeLay has been arrested (Safavian)...

So tell me, does Bush and his administration help or hurt the GOP's chances in 2008?

Somehow you'll put the nail in Bush's coffin.

I think he did that himself with Miers, actually.

It might take another 3 years, but you'll sure as heck get him out!  w00t!

I'd bet he's out before then. I've got champagne chilling in the fridge.


mrC

[Stingray]

It might take another 3 years, but you'll sure as heck get him out!  w00t!

I'd bet he's out before then. I've got champagne chilling in the fridge.

I'm afraid that you're probably wrong about that, but in the event that you are not, I'll be happy to share that champaign.

-S

[ChadTower]

That's part of what I'm talking about.  If things in this country get SO BAD that the President is impeached and forced out of office...

...how the hell is that something worth celebrating?

That is revelling in the downward spiral of our country in order to make yourself feel better.  That is not a good thing.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'm afraid that you're probably wrong about that, but in the event that you are not, I'll be happy to share that champaign.

I don't want to get too excited here, but rumor around Washington is that he and/or Cheney may be implicated in the Plame case as "unindicted co-conspirators." A sitting president can't be directly indicted, but a Vice President can. If that happens, Bush isn't long for this world. He couldn't survive the political maelstrom with his popularity currently in the toilet.

Think Nixon and Agnew.


mrC

[Stingray]

...how the hell is that something worth celebrating?

Then we'd finally have a good response to BUSH WON!

-S

[ChadTower]

No, you would not.

You would have a response that satisfied you.

I don't find anything good at all with what the US has become in the last few years.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

...how the hell is that something worth celebrating?

It's not. Getting rid of the criminals who caused it certainly would be.

That is revelling in the downward spiral of our country in order to make yourself feel better.  That is not a good thing.

BUSH IS NOT AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JESUS H. CHRIST...seperate the two.

That is the reason for the seething hatred many, including myself, have of this man and his party. I can't see why you can't understand that. I despise him for what he has allowed to happen to my beloved country, during his watch, as well as the decisions he's made to make things worse, and I'd dance on the grave of his administration, once it's over. Healing, then continuing my support of those who'd work to fix it.

mrC

[ChadTower]

BUSH IS NOT AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JESUS CHRIST!!! Seperate the two.

You cannot separate the two.  Bush is the President of the United States of America.  He cannot be removed without permanent damage to the United States, domestically and internationally.  Thus far it has not been proven that he should be removed, no matter what quality of job he has done.  If they find acts for which he can legally be removed, I'm sure he will, but in the process enough damage will be done to the United States that celebrating the events will be akin to Nero fiddling while Rome burned.

Nixon's resignation did tremendous damage to the United States, but it did far less than a series of indictments and trials would have done or would do now. 

It's not just the United States, either.  Corruption, misuse, abuse, this is all being exposed in many of the 20th century's main bodies of power.  Look at what has become of the United Nations.  It's a joke figure head of global reaching corruption where not so long ago it was the standing adjudicator of international law.

Giant beauracracies always eventually stagnante, become corrupt, and eventually fail.  That is what is happening to the United States, and unless we can convince enough people to make a positive contribution rather than a negative one, this downward spiral is only going to accelerate.

[Dartful Dodger]

BUSH IS NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JESUS H. CHRIST...seperate the two.

You were wrong about Bush losing because of Iraq, you will be wrong about the Republican party losing because of Bush.

If you want your team to win the next election you need to stop focusing on why the Republican party is a bad choice and focused on why your party is a better choice.

Oh wait, bashing Bush is the only option your team has.

Good luck.

[ChadTower]

If you want your team to win the next election you need to stop focusing on why the Republican party is a bad choice and focused on why your party is a better choice.

That's a solid point in an otherwise unremarkable post from Dartful.

Bring forth a Democratic candidate that does more than pander and point fingers at the Republicans.  "Dems good Repubs bad" doesn't work, hasn't worked the last two elections and likely will not work going forward.

My only viable hope for 2008 is that Mitt Romney runs.  If he can get past the primary without sacrificing too many principles, he will be a strong enough leader to make a positive change in this country.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

BUSH IS NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't you wish. He is going to be hung around the necks of every Republican for the next several generations, like the putrid albatross carcass that he is.

If you want your team to win the next election you need to stop focusing on why the Republican party is a bad choice and focused on why your party is a better choice.

(I'm of the opinion that both need to be done, in tandem)...Because it'd be politically retarded to not reference the mistakes made by this administration and it's party. In fact, it's not possible to talk about what you'd do differently, if you can't talk about what has been done *incorrectly*.

Anyhow, right on cue...

"House Democrats are privately planning to accelerate the timing of the release of their platform and the major policies they will promote on the campaign trail next year."

[...]

"The move comes as many in the party have argued that Democrats need to do more than just complain of Republican excesses and the "culture of corruption" they charge the GOP with fostering."

[...]

"An early draft of the agenda outlines the specific initiatives House Democrats will pledge to enact if given control of the House. Leaders have been working on the document for months, and have already started encouraging Members to unify around it and stick to its themes.

Among the proposals are: "real security" for America through stronger investments in U.S. armed forces and benchmarks for determining when to bring troops home from Iraq; affordable health insurance for all Americans; energy independence in 10 years; an economic package that includes an increase in the minimum wage and budget restrictions to end deficit spending; and universal college education through scholarships and grants as well as funding for the No Child Left Behind act.

Democrats will also promise to return ethical standards to Washington through bipartisan ethics oversight and tighter lobbying restrictions, increase assistance to Katrina disaster victims through Medicaid and housing vouchers, save Social Security from privatization and tighten pension laws.

One Democratic leadership aide said Democrats want to roll out their agenda this fall rather than early next year as leaders originally had planned. This aide suggested that the latest string of events -- from the Republican response to Hurricane Katrina, growing concern about the war in Iraq and mounting questions about GOP ethics -- made it clear Democrats must move quickly

[...]

Members on both the left and right of the Caucus seem receptive to a detailed party outline to present to the public and hope party leaders can put something together this election year that will improve their electoral prospects.

But Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), a leading centrist New Democrat, said no matter what detailed policies Democrats offer up this cycle, they must also make the broader case for why Republicans should no longer be in charge. He said all of the specific proposals will easily fit into that theme that Republicans "are out of touch."

"Democrats fell short in '02 and '04 because we didn't make a compelling case of how Republican policies have allowed American families to lose ground," he said. "We have to make that case."


Dartful, you are free to ignore this information and play stupid, just like you did in 2000 and 2004.

mrC

[DrewKaree]

JESUS H. CHRIST...seperate the two.

It's Jesus Q Christ.  His middle name is Quincy.

Stingray, try not to chuckle the next time you hear someone say "JHC" and you remember this little nugget.  They may think you're laughing at THEM and beat you to within an inch of your life.  Or a pulp, whichever comes second.

That is the reason for the seething hatred many, including myself,

So all this time you were lying when you said you were only saying these things because it was your civic duty to do so? 

I think there is a valid reason he won't admit to wanting to overturn Roe (if he truly does want to)...and it isn't related to your answer.

mrC

That's just more of what Chad's referring to.  Stating something as if you know what goes on in Bush's mind - "There's a valid reason he won't admit" - and only after being pushed on it do you capitulate and throw in the "if he truly does want to".  You're assuming things about the man simply because of your seething hatred.  I, on the other hand, like to assume things because it makes your eyes turn several pretty shades as you become more apoplectic

[Stingray]

JESUS H. CHRIST...seperate the two.

It's Jesus Q Christ.  His middle name is Quincy.

Stingray, try not to chuckle the next time you hear someone say "JHC" and you remember this little nugget.  They may think you're laughing at THEM and beat you to within an inch of your life.  Or a pulp, whichever comes second.

Noted.

-S

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Nixon's resignation did tremendous damage to the United States, but it did far less than a series of indictments and trials would have done or would do now.

I know this. You seem to be arguing that these corrupt politicians should be left in power, simply because to do otherwise would do "tremendous damage to the United States." Somehow, I thing our forefathers would be disgusted with that idea. Are you arguing that Nixon's resignation was more damaging to our democracy than him having his people subvert that very democracy?

As a worse case scenario, it really ---fudgesicle---!ng sucked in Germany after WWII, I'm sure. Some there may have even considered it "tremendously damaging" to the nation's economy and morale...didn't mean it shouldn't have been done.

Giant beauracracies always eventually stagnante, become corrupt, and eventually fail.  That is what is happening to the United States, and unless we can convince enough people to make a positive contribution rather than a negative one, this downward spiral is only going to accelerate.

Convince all the people you want, if you don't speak truth to power your breath is wasted. Carving out corruption, wherever it rears it's ugly head, although painful and damaging in the short term, is an absolute necessity for the long-term strength and stability our country.

We are essentially agreeing, you just don't want to focus on the negative, at all. Ok. Go be a happy, fluffy little cloud of solutions. I won't stop you. Never have.

mrC

[DrewKaree]

Democrats will also promise to return ethical standards to Washington through bipartisan ethics oversight and tighter lobbying restrictions,

So we can look forward to DeLay and Pelosi being on an ethics committee telling others what they should and shouldn't be doing?  And does this mean McCain/Feingold is gonna be "strengthened"?  Pardon me if I'm misunderimpressed

[Dartful Dodger]

Blah blah blah ... I can make a nonsense post that's a page long ... blah blah blah

You can go back to downloading porn and eating chips in front of the tv, because your right. The war in Iraq really ruined the last election for the Republican party, so I'm sure it'll ruin the next one for them too.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

JESUS H. CHRIST...separate the two.

It's Jesus Q Christ.  His middle name is Quincy.

Did not know that.

That is the reason for the seething hatred many, including myself,

So all this time you were lying when you said you were only saying these things because it was your civic duty to do so? 

Prompted into following my civic duty, out of complete disgust over the policies and behavior of an administration and it's leaders. No lie. I don't know a lot of political activists that are motivated by 'happiness toward an administration's policies.'

That's just more of what Chad's referring to.  Stating something as if you know what goes on in Bush's mind - "There's a valid reason he won't admit" - and only after being pushed on it do you capitulate and throw in the "if he truly does want to".  You're assuming things about the man simply because of your seething hatred.

I *did* ask a question though, and I am genuinely curious about other people's perception. Of course I have my own ideas as to why I think he won't publicly announce his stance on Roe V. Wade, and I said as much right above my question. It's not based on my hatred of the man, and your refusal to see it otherwise shows a genuine lack of faith in any answer you may be able to pull from your arse.

This "awwwww, you hate Bush, so I won't acknowledge a valid criticism" crap is really a pathetic defense of the man and his policies and does nothing more than prove to me that I'm on the right path.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You can go back to downloading porn and eating chips in front of the tv, because your right. The war in Iraq really ruined the last election for the Republican party, so I'm sure it'll ruin the next one for them too.

That's all you've got?  I knew I was going to regret, once again, acknowledging your existence on this forum. Can't say I didn't try though. 

And for the record, I eat Jell-O when I'm downloading porn. Makes me HOT!

mrC

[ChadTower]

I know this. You seem to be arguing that these corrupt politicians should be left in power, simply because to do otherwise would do "tremendous damage to the United States."

That is completely outside what I'm trying to say.

Simply put, I think the decline of the US as a whole is more important than any individual administration or President.

[DrewKaree]

Leaders have been working on the document for months, and have already started encouraging Members to unify around it and stick to its themes.

So they need to "unify" and "stick to themes"?  What are these things liberals aren't presently "unified" about?

stronger investments in U.S. armed forces

benchmarks for determining when to bring troops home from Iraq

affordable health insurance for all Americans

energy independence in 10 years

an increase in the minimum wage

budget restrictions to end deficit spending

universal college education through scholarships and grants

funding for the No Child Left Behind act.

ethical standards

tighter lobbying restrictions

increase assistance to Katrina disaster victims through Medicaid and housing vouchers

save Social Security from privatization

tighten pension laws.

Sounds good.  Go Dems Go.  Git R Done.  It'd be nice to know that they weren't "unifying" around something just to win an election, but at least they've realized they were a split party that was going every which way and they needed to rally around several points that up until now, they didn't all believe in.

Hey, that's politics for ya.  You should see what the other side is doing!  Wait'll they vote down Oscar Mayers!

VOTE NO TO HOT DOGS IN '05!

[DrewKaree]

JESUS H. CHRIST...separate the two.

It's Jesus Q Christ.  His middle name is Quincy.

Did not know that.

 

I *did* ask a question though,

See, that's just it.  You asked a question regarding your statement of something you have no possible way of knowing is true unless you're a mind reader.  You stated it as fact, and then asked a question based on your assumption of what you view as "fact".

Big difference between what you want to know, and what's actually known about your assertion of the facts.  See, what it all comes down to is what your definition of "is" is.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Simply put, I think the decline of the US as a whole is more important than any individual administration or President.  The problems in the US are not all caused by Bush alone and the largest of them all existed before Bush Jr or Bush Sr became President.

I'd say the decline of U.S. society has a lot more to do with reality TV, materialism and off-shoring,  more than anything else. Politicans just take advantage of the moment to hasten said decline while they line their own pockets.

That way I see it, politicians can't dramatically change American society, but they can generally influence certain aspects of said society, while in power, which will - in turn - lead individuals en masse to alter society in a specific way. That's their power. Clinton was generally positive with all that he said and did and that sentiment was echoed throughout America. He is still tremendously popular today. Bush, has ruled by fear-mongering, and presented a divisive and negative attitude that is reflected in the popularity of people like Ann Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity...then that, in turn, is reflected throughout American society in general.

I think, because of this, whoever the next president is...they are going to have to have an extremely smart plan to overcome these divides. America can't survive another 4-8 yrs of this kind of politics. We need TRUE bi-partisanship...and I hope to see it from either side. We don't have that now, because BushCo. doesn't want it.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

See, that's just it.  You asked a question regarding your statement of something you have no possible way of knowing is true unless you're a mind reader.  You stated it as fact, and then asked a question based on your assumption of what you view as "fact".

It's called 'speculation'. I never claimed it as fact, merely opinion.

What would you 'speculate' is the reason Bush won't state a clear and concise stance on whether he wants to see Roe V. Wade overturned? Nor why he doesn't support his nominees to SCOTUS giving a clear and concise statement regarding their stance on same?

I wasn't stating I KNEW his stance, that's the POINT...he won't say. My question is...why?


mrC





mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

That's all you've got?

BUSH WON!!!

That's all I need.

[DrewKaree]

It's called 'speculation'. I never claimed it as fact, merely opinion.

Go back and re-read it.  You can't even figure out what you're saying!  You stated it as fact.  You might wish to find out what speculation means if you believe your statement of what Bush wants to do would fit that definition.  Your OPINION came several posts later as Chad queried you.  I've even quoted it several posts above if you don't feel like reading your own words.  I wouldn't blame you.  Lots of us have a hard time stomaching them

What would you 'speculate' is the reason Bush won't state a clear and concise stance on whether he wants to see Roe V. Wade overturned? Nor why he doesn't support his nominees to SCOTUS giving a clear and concise statement regarding their stance on same?

To address the second part of your question, Darth Vader Ginsberg addressed such questions during her hearings.  Go back and revisit them if you like.  To address the first part of your question, I think it's something he views as a personal choice the law allows.  For all I know, Laura at one time or another had an abortion, and he asked her to.  I didn't vote for him because of his stance on abortion; that's your platform to rail against, not mine.

I wasn't stating I KNEW his stance, that's the POINT...he won't say. My question is...why?

Is there any answer he'd give that you wouldn't cackle with glee at?  He's not changing the law and hasn't even spoken of changing the law.  When he does, I know I can rest assured you'll be the first to let everyone know about it, but until then, I could care less that he DOESN'T address it.  If he said he wanted to change it, you'd be telling us "see, see, I told you so!".  If he said he DIDN'T want to change it, you'd be asking me "how do you feel voting for someone who doesn't believe what you believe in".

There is no reason for him to answer a question that you've already answered for him in spite of not knowing what he believes.  Clearly his view on the issue would have something to do with his religious beliefs, so are you looking for him to convert you with his death-stare hypnotism?  I'd be afraid if I were you too!  He got to a bunch of us last election!

[ChadTower]

Clinton was generally positive with all that he said and did and that sentiment was echoed throughout America.

In the end, Clinton did more damage than he built.

[DrewKaree]

Here, I'll even he'p ya out, Sparky.

States as fact:

Even Bush won't come and say he'd want to overturn Roe. Why is that?


mrC

States as fact YET AGAIN:

"Even Bush won't come and say he'd want to overturn Roe. Why is that?"

States as fact YET AGAIN, but remembers to temper it with an opinion to allow throwing up of hands and saying "who me?" later:

I think there is a valid reason he won't admit to wanting to overturn Roe (if he truly does want to)...and it isn't related to your answer.

mrC

Mebbe give Webster's a quick perusal.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

but he destroyed it with one press conference.  He stood before television cameras and lied to the American public, flat out, without condition.

See...this is where I think the spins starts. Most Americans, time and again, have said - by an overwhelming majority - that they didn't think it was THAT big of a deal. The constant banter from the right, blaming Clinton's ---auto-censored--- for everything since, has taken root. However, it never addresses the reality that Clinton's popularity was 68% during the "impeachment" trial. The American public still doesn't care that Clinton lied about getting a blowjob. Just exactly as much as they did when it was an ongoing 'crisis' and that just pisses off the righties to no end.

ABC News Poll. Latest: Conducted Monday night, August 17, 1998.

"Given what you know about this issue, do you think Clinton should remain in office as president, or should he resign the presidency?"
   Remain in office    68             
   Resign                 28
   No opinion             4

"If he does not resign, do you think Congress should or should not impeach Clinton and remove him from office?"
   Should impeach    25             
   Should not           69             
   No opinion            6


Them's the FACTS!


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Here, I'll even he'p ya out, Sparky.

States as fact:

Even Bush won't come and say he'd want to overturn Roe. Why is that?


mrC

States as fact YET AGAIN:

So, Drew...Did Bush come out and say he'd want to overturn Roe or uphold Roe? If not, why not?

Your not-so-clever gotcha' game isn't working...you still haven't answered the question.
mrC