My opinion on Bush is irrational because it is based upon feeling. I just hate the man. I don't know what he did that was good, I can't see it...but everything about him makes me cringe. Maybe I'm just like him...they say we often are repulsed by those most like ourselves since it is so easy to see the flaws. I don't think so, but I don't discount the possibility. I have argued this one with my guy for over a decade. He tells me my dislike and disdain are irrational. I know this, but still just seeing a picture of him reminds me of some dismal mental incompetent with strings attached to their limbs . Viscerally he makes me want to throw up. Clinton's behaviour got him elected how? Because some kid sucked him off? Explain that.
Oh, dear. Well, here goes. We start with the fact that I wasn't a big fan of Bush. However, I credit him with what he did right, and I don't blame him for what wasn't his fault.
First, as to his election, blame the American people, not Bush. They were pretty upset about Clinton's adultery, and the fact that he literally did it in the Oval Office. Add to that the fact that Gore ran the second-worst campaign in history (after Romney), and that's how Bush got in. OK, highlights. . .
1. 9/11. Bush provided a lot of highly visible, very strong leadership in the aftermath. He also made a specific point of warning that he would not tolerate vengeance against Muslims in the U.S., and he pushed law enforcement hard to prevent, stop, and punish revenge attacks.
2. Afghanistan. The war started pretty well. There was no real hope of avoiding it, and bombing the crap out of the Taliban was considered by most to be a good idea. If you recall, they weren't very nice people.
3. Iraq. Bush's biggest mistake. No real excuse for it. That's to his blame.
4. The economy. The country was in a mild recession, and he tried to alleviate it with stimulus. He gave money directly to the people. Which was probably better than giving it to the banks. We've seen what happened when we did that.
5. Abortion. Bush took the usual symbolic stand against it, but it's worth noting that while he was President, he did little or nothing about it. He was basically content to let sleeping dogs lie.
6. Social Security (retirement pensions). Bush tried to semi-privatise it. It was actually a pretty fair idea, and at least he had the guts to try to do something about it (the Democrats blocked him). Everyone agrees that Social Security reform is necessary, but nobody else has done anything but talk.
7. The real estate bubble and crash. Not really Bush's fault. For that matter, it was Clinton who signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act into law, which is generally thought to be one of the prime causes of the bubble and crash.
8. The bailout. Bush did what he had to do. Our economy was teetering on the brink. He had to do something, and he had the full support of a Democratic-controlled Congress.
Limiting welfare to those who truly need it.
I hate....need. I know people want to label those that need as lazy and deserving. That is just a way of justifying not helping. "I would help, if they deserved it". that is so limited... seldom do they understand others or the psychology of the situation so how can they understand need. They carry their own baggage... they do not wish to understand need...because maybe it's contagious.
Yes there are some who are lazy or greedy or wish to take advantage, but if there are kids involved, the kids should "get what is required to help them survive." But even when it is a case of willful laziness, if I have more food in my cupboard than I could ever eat and another has need... I can not understand the desire not to just give it. I will never understand that desire to withhold help. I also think that others do not wish to understand the human condition without placing blame.
I mostly agree. Nonetheless, in our economic set-up, you have to work to live. Our welfare system is an incomprehensible mish-mash of programs with phenomenal inefficiencies and endless opportunities for the lazy and dishonest to cheat it. I would love to see a President who had the brains and balls to order a thorough study, a rational overhaul, and the leadership to push it through.
It is true, what you say here. I see the Republicans as anti-people. The die hard lefties are anti people too. I see the little guy who supports them as not understanding that he is the little guy and Goliath would squash him too if needed even though he supports Goliath. I have been accused of supporting the underdog. I am guilty.
The Republicans, in broad sweep, support "traditional values." Trust me, being non-white, unmarried, and not a Father Knows Best type, I've got lots of problems with that. But I also have lots of problems with rewarding laziness, dishonesty, and bad decisions. I don't want to be taken care of, I can take care of myself. Seems to me the Republicans favour allowing and requiring you to take care of yourself, while the Democrats favour allowing and requiring the government to tell you what to do, with less freedom for you to make your own choices.
True. But all these little guys think they are cowboys. That's okay when one has their health, their strength and their mental capabilities (limited or not). What most do not understand is, these will not last. They will wane and they will weaken and regardless of the guns they possess only the goodness of those with strength will save them. Why don't people get that. If everyone had everyone's best interest at heart they wouldn't need a gun closet?
Only when they understand that it is not in their best interest, nor will it actually keep them alive longer than their strength lasts, only when they wish the best for others will they be able to trust that others wish the best for them. So..............never. It's a mind set. It will take generations to change.
Not everyone has everyone's best interests at heart. Never have, never will. Personally, I don't see guns as a huge issue. We have about 11,000 gun homicides per year, and dropping steadily. A total of about 30,000 gun deaths (the others are accidents and suicides). I own guns for a variety of reasons (mostly that I like to hunt and shoot). But here's the question: why should I, a sane and sensible gun owner, be forced to give up my guns because of criminals and fools? If you adopt the philosophy that that which is dangerous in the hands of criminals and fools must be forbidden to all, where does that end?
If we were there: if we could actually know without a shadow of a doubt then maybe. I still think to condone it, does something to our soul, our being, it lessens us. And in the end, we only have that.
I have little patience with people who, having been reared and supposedly civilised by society for two decades, deliberately go out to rape, rob, steal, and kill. As far as I'm concerned, they are not of sufficient value to society, nor likely ever to be, to keep them alive. If it were up to me, I'd include the Wall Street assbags who precipitated the crisis. If the best thing you can do with your life and education is destroy people's lives, society has the right and, to my mind, the duty to put a stop to you.
Plenty of abusive and addicted people have reared healthy, functional kids. Like my mother. Was she a good mother? No. She drank too much, f*cked around too much, and wasn't there too often. Would the government have done a better job of rearing me? If my experience at the Indian school is anything to go by, no it wouldn't. At least Mom loved me in her boozy, emotionally damaged, neglectful way. And taking me away from Mom would have meant taking me away from Grandmother, who is completely to credit for whatever I am that's good.
for me, they are carved in stone... for you, not. Bush led their country to disaster... educate him all you want...it's too late.
What disaster? Are Americans staving en masse? Are we involved in a murderous civil war? No, we are rich, comfortable, and well taken care of by world standards. What's the disaster?
I see the Republicans as anti people, pro profit at the expense of anyone who gets in their way including their own.
Hard to be pro people with no money.
As I said, I have plenty of issues with Republicans. I defend them here because you're attacking. Far as I'm concerned, both parties miss the two critical points, which are:
1. What should society provide to its people, and expect of them in return? and
2. How can we most efficiently deliver what we should provide to people?
Nobody's addressing either of those issues.
but if I met him, I'd be nice.
