What's So Great About George W. Bush

The Republicans are not acting like Democrats. The Republicans are acting like British Tories. There was a day when honest Conservative Republicans were hammering on Big Government and standing up for our rights in law. Where is the current Republican Party on civil liberties, the very thing Conservatives are supposed to be about? It's lapsed into caricature, but let's just take Second Amendment debate as a case in point where Conservatives have fiercely defended our individual rights.

Where is that fierceness when it comes to secret wiretapping, denying habeas corpus, the use of torture, open government, no-bid contracts and the like? No, you are not Democrats. Democrats and Social Liberals believe government is a perfectible thing. The Conservatives are supposed to disagree, and loudly (and correctly! ) shout out that government is not the solution, that it must be restrained, and do the will of the people.

No, you Republicans have become a contemptible parody of your former selves. Your party is broken, and Bush broke it. Now the Liberals are having to do the work you Conservatives should have been doing, and didn't

Big Secret Intrusive Goverment? Nah, Dems like the idea of a working government. Which is where we should be tussling, that's the legitimate argument, wouldn't you agree? Conservatives argue for a lean mean fighin' machine, and the Libs say laws without enforcement is no law at all.

Yeah, the Dems believe in national defense, too. Men like Jack Murtha. That's a pile of hooey, as if Dems didn't want a strong defense posture. Bush has wrecked our military.

Are you saying the Republicans aren't defending Bush's right to torture? Are you saying the Republicans haven't blocked every move to reduce Executive power? Dear me, don't say such things, people might start thinking you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Conservatives believe that our Rights cannot exist if we are tying our own hands in defense of them.

(roars of contempt) you are defending the abrogation of our rights. When tyranny comes, it promises security.

The sorry state that is the "Otto" crowd. Completely oblivious to not only what Bush is, and what he has done, but what people like Otto continue to do; prolong the tragedy that is the inability to be honest about one's party; in turn crippling it more.

" A good conservative understands that sometimes reality renders ideals useless".

How very wrong you are.

Or...effective government that serves the people in the areas it is needed most.

You have not denied the Secret and Intrusive parts of my statement. A government works best not when it works least, but where it has been restrained by a judicial system from violating our Fourth Amendment rights among other rights. . That does not go against Democratic philosophy. Bush refuses to respond to lawful subpoenas. The Republican response has been to balk any attempt to reach the truth.

I'm saying that Republicans don't want the public to know what they've been doing. Anything our government does should be audited. Secrecy is one thing: I have several different government clearances, I work on secure computer systems. Yet my every move in those system is witnessed by other Americans, whose job is to monitor my activities. Where secrecy hides lies and crimes and torture, it is not legitimate. No argument you can make will justify torture.

I have interrogated enemy prisoners, you have not. Torture pumps bullshid up the intelligence pipeline, for a tortured man will say anything. Our definitions differ because I have practical experience. What your experience may be should be taken as that of someone who has the balls to torture, but not the brains to know the reality of handling enemy prisoners, or how a professional interrogator does his job.

As it happens, I am in contact with northern Pakistan. I receive emails from an eye surgeon who works in Murree, a childhood friend. Anyone who wishes to read those emails can go to a FISA judge and get a warrant. If Those In Charge read my email without a judge's say-so, yes, I do have a problem with that. You don't, it seems. Let me get the IP to your box, install a rootkit, and start prowling around your hard drive. I have a need to know all about what's in your box. My need is curiosity.

Let me tell you something, Bodhi, an intelligence operator, a cop, and I are all equal until someone gets a warrant from a judge. You have nothing to hide? Doesn't give me the right to install that rootkit and merrily troll around in your hard drive, or look around in your wife's underwear drawer while you're at work. We have warrants for a reason. You love the idea of Someone In Charge, I'll tell you who's in charge of warrants, and that's the judge goddamnit. I don't want to hear any of your ignorant bluster about the Fourth Amendment. The Constitution is not a death warrant, it's a life raft. You might take a look at the Amendments, and see in them the people restraining the government to lawful activity.

If there is anyone on Newsvine who has a clue this, it's me. Since when did the Fourth Amendment become such an obstacle to justice? I will allow a judge to determine the reasonable and necessary nature of my email and your wife's panty drawer.

Sorry, replace Bodhi with OttO, my apologies.

Sorry, replace Bodhi with OttO, my apologies.

I could never replace Otto. Nor would I try.

Interesting parallel, but bad comparison. It should read he "restored peoples rights" not infringed.

Hmm. Because I'd say that banning abortion would be restoring peoples' rights. You'd argue that a fetus isn't a person. The South used to argue that an African-American wasn't a person.

Andrew, it would be reducing the rights of the woman involved.

Wasn't freeing slaves reducing the right of the plantation owner?

Hardly in the same way...the plantation owner still had full control over his own body.

Comparing abortion to slavery is a big red herring in my book.

@TJG

Not if you were birthing "soldier "[slaves] to "serve"...... the State [master].........
heehee...

the plantation owner still had full control over his own body.

But the plantation owner wasn't killing anyone. Sure, he enslaved. But he didn't kill.

Nor does a woman aborting, since a fetus isn't a person under the law.

Keep your religion far from women's medical decisions, thank you.

An African-American wasn't a person under the law in 1860.

But they were never fully dependent on another for even the most basic of life functions.

And weren't they considered 3/5ths of a person?

Andrew, are you ready to force organ donation or even blood donation if you cause an accident and the person hurt needs it to survive? Are you willing to incarcerate women who have abortions and investigate all miscarriages to be sure they weren't induced?

That is just part of the road you start down when you outlaw abortion. Not to mention that it will only really hurt the poor, as the rich will be able to pay off a doctor to make a problem go away.

And weren't they considered 3/5ths of a person?

That was so the South would get more House members.

Andrew, are you ready to force organ donation or even blood donation if you cause an accident and the person hurt needs it to survive? Are you willing to incarcerate women who have abortions and investigate all miscarriages to be sure they weren't induced?

No, yes, and yes. If the fetus is a human being, than aborting it should be considered murder. The crime would be the same as having a doctor kill a born child. As for investigating... I would take the same steps as we do to make sure children aren't killed.

Why is it the doctor who should face prison for abortion, when it is the woman who is complicit? It seems that if it is illegal, the woman should at least face accessory charges.

As for not forcing organ donation/blood donation, how do you justify forcing only women to give up their bodies for another due to their actions? Either everyone is responsible when their actions harm another, and the sanctity of life is the only concern, or it isn't. Why isn't a driver to be equally responsible for giving of his body when he causes an accident, as a woman who accidently gets pregnant? Of course I know the answer--it is sexism and wanting to control women and reproduction that concerns the anti-choice men, not fetus "deaths."

Oh did I not mention that? The woman should definitely be an accessory. But the doctor is the one who performed the murder.

As for not forcing organ donation/blood donation, how do you justify forcing only women to give up their bodies for another due to their actions?

By that reasoning, we shouldn't stop murderers from killing. That's taking control of their body, right?

Nope, that is controlling their actions against another person.

It just seems to me that if it is about the sanctity of life, then it needs to be across the board that a person can be forced to give up their right to their own organs/blood if not doing so means someone else dies. Otherwise, you are saying that only women should be so subjugated.

But abortion is blatant murder. That's the difference between that and mandatory donating.

So is driving drunk and causing an accident. Even regular accidents can be involuntary manslaughter.

And I would disagree--abortion is not the killing of a person, but a fetus.

Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy is telling women in essence that their rights are secondary to a fetus, because the right to life is the most important. If you say that in one case, you are a hypocrite to not apply it across the board. But I think Andrew what bothers you about the organ/blood donation being mandatory to save another is that it puts you in the position of the woman forced to carry a pregnancy, with your rights secondary to providing life.

Women who have abortions should be hanged, then shot, then electrocuted, and then burned at the stake for the murdering witches they are!

Oh, sorry, pardon me. I was temporarily possessed by the spirit of a deceased far right extreme christian hate group member. That was scary!

Come back to us, Kevin!

So is driving drunk and causing an accident. Even regular accidents can be involuntary manslaughter.

You weren't killing people on purpose. It's not pre-meditated.

Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy is telling women in essence that their rights are secondary to a fetus, because the right to life is the most important.

Just like a plantation's owner's property rights were second to the right to freedom.

But I think Andrew what bothers you about the organ/blood donation being mandatory to save another is that it puts you in the position of the woman forced to carry a pregnancy, with your rights secondary to providing life.

One word: no. Because not donating organs/blood isn't pre-meditated murder.

Oh, sorry, pardon me. I was temporarily possessed by the spirit of a deceased far right extreme christian hate group member. That was scary!

I hope you're not talking about me. Because if you are, I'd ask you to show me where I was being a hate group member.

I was not talking about you, personally, no. I have absolutely no clue what your stance on the death penalty is. I was simply responding, in general, to TheJonesGirl's comment about applying the right to life across the board and not just to abortions. Many anti-abortionists (not all, I understand that) think that the death penalty is just fine and dandy, which is, in my opinion, hypocrisy. Killing is killing is killing. Now, me personally, I do not believe that a fetus is a human life, I believe it is a collection of cells.

OK, I guess I misinterpreted your comment. Sorry about that.

Of course I know the answer--it is sexism and wanting to control women and reproduction that concerns the anti-choice men, not fetus "deaths."

Oh, I'm sure you do. Glad you already know why everyone who opposes abortion believes what they believe. I am so glad that you can tell them all why they believe what they believe, because it isn't like they of all people could know why they believe something!

Because you know, we all know, that there has never been a woman or a man in the situation where they have an undesired pregnancy, but despite that, just cannot bring themselves to have an abortion. That has never happened. No one, despite being in the terrible situation where they have become pregnant but are not prepared for it, has ever thought, "I don't want to deal with the implications of this, it wasn't even my fault -- birth control failed -- but I just cannot have an abortion, because it is wrong."

Right? Because we all know that it is just men controlling women. It isn't an ethical issue for people. It is only about sexism. Right?

My only question, then, if you already know all this, is why, if you know the answer already, do you even ask?

The plantation owners could maintain the basics of life without the slaves' bodies....it's an invalid comparison on so many levels, Andrew.

You weren't killing people on purpose. It's not pre-meditated.

It can be argued that the moment you take a drink knowing you will drive, you pre-meditated the act. In any case, isn't your primary issue the right to life? You seem to think that life isn't so important when it is anyone but pregnant women forced to give up the rights of their bodies for another...very transparent.

Because not donating organs/blood isn't pre-meditated murder.

Again, if a person dies because of your refusal, you are putting that person's rights to his body over the right to life of a person who needs it or will die...in essence, you are making the choice to let that person die. You aren't consistent, Andrew.

Kyle, it does seem to be all about sexism when you make excuses for other areas where right to life is trumped by a person's right to his own body, yet are OK with forcing women to give up their bodies for what is, scientifically and legally not a person. As I said a second ago, it comes to consistency. If the right to life is what matters, then a person should be required to give up the rights to his or her body whenever not doing so will lead to someone who needs an organ or blood dying...or at least in cases where a person causes an accident that leads to another needing blood or an organ.

Otherwise, you are simply saying that only in this one situation should the rights of one to life come above another's rights to her body, which, in my book isn't legally, morally or in any way consistent. If your argument for anti-choice is that the right to life trumps all, it should be across the board...which is one reason, amongst many that I am pro-choice. I don't think that anyone, be it pregnant woman or drunk driving man should be forced to give up his/her body for another.

The plantation owners could maintain the basics of life without the slaves' bodies....it's an invalid comparison on so many levels, Andrew.

I'm not saying they're the same. But there are many similarities. Such as the fact that slaves were still alive while they were enslaved whereas the fetus is not alive after being aborted.

It can be argued that the moment you take a drink knowing you will drive, you pre-meditated the act. In any case, isn't your primary issue the right to life? You seem to think that life isn't so important when it is anyone but pregnant women forced to give up the rights of their bodies for another...very transparent.

OK, how about this. WHY would I want to lord myself over women I don't even know? Is it possible that perhaps I believe that abortion is actually murder?

for what is, scientifically and legally not a person.

Again, neither were slaves at the time.

Scientifically, slaves were people. They could maintain stasis on their own, so could plantation owners.

If you can't see the inconsistency in your views about right to life, Andrew, I can't make it any clearer. It just seems to me that you are OK with forcing one class of people (women) to put their health and bodies on the line to provide life for another, but are squirmy when any other example of putting a person in any other position's body/health on the line for another's right to life. It screams sexism and doesn't stand up legally or ethically.

Scientifically, slaves were people. They could maintain stasis on their own, so could plantation owners.

Not according to the science of that day.

If you can't see the inconsistency in your views about right to life, Andrew, I can't make it any clearer. It just seems to me that you are OK with forcing one class of people (women) to put their health and bodies on the line to provide life for another, but are squirmy when any other example of putting a person in any other position's body/health on the line for another's right to life. It screams sexism and doesn't stand up legally or ethically.

OK, then let's look at it from your side. If you want to be consistent, then should murder become legal?

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever, if you are making a comparison then you must think that every month that the potential mother is not pregnant the married couple are murdering a child. That's just pure fantasy.

By the way as a test of when life is life ask yourself this question honestly....

At what age were you when you first can remember anything at all, and no an answer is not a "warm and fuzzy feeling".

In retrospect it seems that your bar is pretty low for calling women murderers, are men also not murderers when they don't impregnate every woman who could possibly bring forward life.

As a final thought I would say perhaps it's parked in the back of your mind is the fact that we are overpopulating at an alarming rate. How would you propose that we attack this problem that will in the end lead to it becoming a privilege instead of a right to have children. Believe what you want but that will be a real issue for our children and grandchildren and they would wonder how it is possible to accomplish this by protecting every possibility of a child be conceived.

Forest

Andrew, I appreciate the fact that you feel abortion is murder, and there are many of you who feel that it is. To you, I give this advice: Don't have an abortion.

To many of us, we don't see it as murder, as a fetus is not a person. So, to take your extreme in the opposite direction, do you feel masturbation should be illegal? Birth control? All those, poor, helpless seeds, that could have, possibly some day been a human being, just being wasted and thrown away?

Kevin, I don't believe mastrubation is should be illegal. Because it's not killing a living human being. It isn't what COULD have been, more what WAS and isn't now.

But a fetus is also not a living human being. Abortion is also what COULD have been, what was and isn't now.

I ask you this, should a woman be arrested for having her period? Her body is getting rid of an egg that could be a human. If a woman is sexually active, much of the time, that egg is fertilized when it exits the body. In fact, MOST pregnancies end this way. That is a scientific fact.

OK, how about this. Pretend that a fetus is a human being. Should abortion be illegal?

I can't just "pretend that a fetus is a human being". I mean, I could, but it wouldn't be practical. I don't believe in killing human beings, if that's what you want to know. But since a fetus is not a human being, killing a human being does not come into the picture when discussing abortion. If you can prove to me that a fetus is a human being, scientifically, then I might change my stance. If you can prove that a fetus has a soul, then I might change my stance. But no such proof exists, and by saying that a fetus "might be" a human being, you are saying that a woman should be arrested because she "might have" committed a crime, but, we can't be sure, but we locked her up anyway, just to be safe.

First, you didn't answer my question. Just for argument's sake, should abortion be illegal if a fetus is a human being?

How do you define a human being?

No, I didn't directly answer your question. But the answer is there if you read my post. I refuse to pretend that a fetus is a human being. To be fair, you didn't answer my question about fertilized eggs being flushed from the female body. Nature's abortions, which occur at a rate of millions per day.

Should abortion be illegal if a fetus is a human being? It doesn't matter one way or the other, because a fetus is NOT a human being.

A human being is:

noun
any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage

A fetus is:

The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.

And, to be fair, many abortions don't even involve fetuses, they involve embryos. It isn't a fetus until after the second month of pregnancy, and once it becomes a fetus, once it really begins to simply RESEMBLE a human being, abortion becomes illegal. Most abortions are performed to remove the embryo, which is:

An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.

There is a reason that we have a common phrase in our language, "Don't count your chickens before they're hatched." And it's because eggs aren't chickens.

his belief in America

How can he believe in America- and what our founding father's wanted for America- when he can't even abide by AMERICA'S Constitution-the very document we are founded on?

His patriotism

Is patriotism sending your soldiers off to a war that should have never been fought? 911 was caused by persons from Afghanistan. Not Iraq. I am sick of hearing "we had to go after them so that we didn't have another attack like 911". Then find the persons responsible for it! Don't lead us to a war based on lies and telling us it is in our best interest! Making America out to be a bully is not very patriotic in my opinion. Keeping soldiers in a places where they keep dying, when we should be leaving- isn't patriotic. Not admitting your mistakes and that you shouldn't have killed those innocent people, isn't patriotic.

his resolve

I give you this one. He does have resolve. The resolve to prove he is right-when everyone can see that he isn't. The resolve to never admit mistakes. The resolve to keep forging ahead when everyone else can see you shouldn't. The resolve to think that you know what is best for every country- not just the one that you were elected to lead. Yes, you are right. The man is full of resolve.

911 was caused by persons from Afghanistan. Not Iraq.

Uh, no, they were not. Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Mohammed Atta was from Egypt, two were from the United Arab Emirates, and another was Lebanese.

Besides which, al Qaeda was not an Afghan organization -- it was, as the nationalities of the hijackers suggest, a primarily Arab organization, but international. It is, therefore, mostly irrelevant where specifically the group came from -- AQ pulled support at times (but not much, as bin Laden preferred to operate independently from those "heretical states") from various Arab nations.

And that is all beside the point anyway, since your line of reasoning that we should have only attacked Afghanistan because AQ was based there ignores the motivations for the Iraq war, which were to 1. coerce Saudi Arabia to interdict AQ in their own country, which they were reluctant to do prior to the Iraq war but all too willing to do immediately after 140,000 U.S. soldiers and air support was standing on their front door, 2. to push other Muslim nations to do the same thing, which was also successful, and 3. to build a Muslim democracy to show the Muslim world that corrupt dictatorships or Islamic fundamentalism are not their only choice of government.

Unfortunately it was bungled in many ways, but my point is not that the war was necessarily justified, but rather that your simplistic rejection of the Iraq war is symptomatic of a larger problem we see today -- people are so set in what they see as "true" that they cannot even entertain the idea of something they disagree with, something that isn't the "mainstream" truth. "Iraq war is bad, Bush is stupid." To suggest anything else is not only heretical, but automatically makes the person doing so an idiot and not even worth talking to.

Democracy indeed.

Instead of a pot-shot,

Come on Otto, don't be a starched shirt.......Lemme take a "pot shot"......I'm sure I can hit the subject !

I couldda been a contender !

........Otto ?
....Come on !

I do not hate George Bush. Ask anyone, especially Bill Harrison, I have defended him personally. I have left the issue of lying aside, and phrased it as a question. Do not put words in my mouth. Sheep are eaten.

Yes you have said you prefer men to laws.

I would like to take this time to give him credit in areas that he doesn't get much (if any) recognition for: his legacy as leader who defied odds and defied the new status quo in public opinion and did it with political diplomacy and unyielding optimism.

George Bush is the most un-diplomatic president in our history. Preferring war to politics, he has led us into a state of eternal war waged entirely with borrowed money, with intense fear mongering and non-existent WMDs. We have now spent over 84,000 dollars per Iraqi on this war. If that is diplomacy, you must redefine warmongering.

Your use of adjectives like Rabid, Senseless and Hyperbolic tell me all I need to know about you. Bush is an affable man, but he is not Diplomatic or Optimistic. He has waved his arms around and frightened the living daylights out of this country, led it to needless war, used CIA agents like disposable pawns in a contemptible war on his critics. He refuses to respond to subpoenas. He believes himself above the law, in a recursion of justice which resembles nothing so much as the Divine Right of Kings.

All these are beyond dispute. You ignore the obvious evidence in contradiction of your fawning encomiums of America's worst president.

Your use of adjectives like Rabid, Senseless and Hyperbolic tell me all I need to know about you.

Wow, that says SO much...

He has waved his arms around and frightened the living daylights out of this country,

Blaise - 6.4 - to the contrary - part of Bush's legacy may be that he has allowed us to slip into a false sense of security that we are safer than we really are in the post 9-11 world.

Lisa,

The chances are greater of a person being in a car accident than facing terrorism...perhaps we shouldn't be so secure in our cars? War on Driving?

The chances of someone being murdered in their home is also far smaller than being killed in a car accident. Guess we should re-commission all those police officers into trained taxi-cab drivers so none of us have to get into crashes ever again.

TJG - the gal I sit less than 6 feet away from at work - who happens to be a dear friend and my boss lost her father on 9-11 so please don't talk to me about the percentages.

The election drew record numbers of voters and George Bush, who had previously fooled a couple dozen Democrats into voting to support a war that they didn't really support, fooled them all again.....

I didn't mention one thing about torture or wiretapping or no bid contracts.

then address my perspective on his statesmanship

Conservatives believe that the federal government should have the power to fulfill it's mandate of providing a national defense for this country.

I'll gladly take court approved, wiretapping of international phone calls if we in turn abolish the Department of Education.

I would like to take this time to give him credit in areas that he doesn't get much (if any) recognition for: his legacy as *leader* who defied odds and defied the new status quo in public opinion

Character is king. Again. ( ? )

a few excerpts from proceedings which cause me to ponder....

fawning encomiums

sounds right to me....and reminds me of something completely off track...from the movie Halfbaked: "I don't know, we never used 'em"

TJG - the gal I sit less than 6 feet away from at work - who happens to be a dear friend and my boss lost her father on 9-11 so please don't talk to me about the percentages.

And explain how this has anything with the rarity of terrorism in the US? Explain how it gives you some kind of authority on the subject as well. Percentages carry more weight than your "affected by association" argument.

Lisa,

I know people who were lost on 9/11 as well. What does that have to do with the chances of terrorism happening to anyone?

The War on Terror is a drummed up excuse to be afraid and to give up liberites to the government.

The War on Terror is a drummed up excuse to be afraid and to give up liberites to the government

TJG - for the record, I'm not afraid---because to be afraid is to lose. And I do not believe I've given up any of my liberties to the government.

What you believe and what is true are very different, Lisa.

Do not attempt to divert my complaints away, as if these policies were independent of those who promulgate them. Bush is deserving of as much respect as any man. I will not attack him personally, for I believe a man is more than the sum of his deeds, there is a soul and a spirit within him, and I have roundly attacked those who go after him and his wife.

Yet for all that, George Bush is a signature. That signature appears on a little sheaf of documents related to his dismal failures in the Texas Air National Guard, my primary reason for disliking him, though technically not AWOL, he failed to fulfill the terms of his contract. While others went to war and died, others shot down and tortured, he used his family connections to avoid dangerous duty. Many men did just as he did, it's all in the past. Yet his TXANG experiences became a signpost for what would later prove a pattern of dishonest dealings and skating on his family name. While he was governor, he used his signature to enrich himself and his cronies with the Rangers Stadium deal. Again, not strictly illegal at the time, that loophole would be stoppered up, but it was a stinky episode, and a man may be known by his friends.

I can point to Bush's pissiness and pessimism, let us take the whole wretched episode of Colin Powell's performance at the UN before the Iraq War. Every last bit of evidence presented was wrong. Not some, all. All leadership is by example, thus I was taught in NCO school.

Everything can be delegated except responsibility. George Bush's entire life has been one long avoidance of responsibility.

Going back to the original point. If Bush was really such a liar as all that, why did America re-elect him (winning both the popular and electoral vote this time).

Two reasons:
1) Too many people voted against their best interest because they really wanted to believe W was both compassionate and conservative.
2) Both elections were stolen by the Rove machine.

The Otto Show - and when you think of the challenges he faced......I tip my hat to him. No, he is not perfect. One of his greatest shortcomings and to his own detriment is as you reference his relatively poor ability to communicate rationale for his positions. Yet despite all the naysayers, I am still very proud to call him my President. FYI (and because I'm so often accused of never criticizing him)- the top things he's done that irritated me most: Harriet Miers, Immigration Bill (fortunately killed), and the enormous expanision he oversaw of social programs (i.e., the prescription drug plan, no child left behind etc ) that was anything but conservative. PS - of course with the appointments of Roberts & Alito - all was forgiven by me re: Miers.

We'll see how well the "surge" is working once al-Sadr's cease fire ends.

And it doesn't change the thousanda that died for this poorly executed, pointless war.

Just because you disagree with it does not mean it doesn't have a point. Perhaps you just can't seem to see it...

Sorry, DA...the Repubs can't wave a wand and make the bumbling of this occupation vanish.

Again ..wrong.. what is now working are ethnically cleansed neighborhoods. Parse the news over the last week.. there have been.. what over 100 Iraqi civilian deaths from bombings? And one bombing at a funeral for a man killed in another bombing? Read General Petrayus' last statement on the effects of the surge.. it comes down to, it may or may not be working.. there will be setbacks and inevitably more hard fighting.. basically.. Its successfull, not successfull, working.. but maybe not in the long term.. babble..not babble..

DAWeb

Just because you disagree with it does not mean it doesn't have a point. Perhaps you just can't seem to see it...

You're right, DAWeb......... But, TJG means it had "no point" for "this country" [USA] to involve itself in.

And that is her opinion, not fact.

We'll see how well the "surge" is working once al-Sadr's cease fire ends.

Correct. We will see. Which is why I don't support pulling out troops too soon.

TJG
it doesn't change the thousands that died for this poorly executed, pointless war. 9!#7.3 - Wed Jan 2, 2008 2:45 PM ESTDAWeb
Just because you disagree with it does not mean it doesn't have a point. Perhaps you just can't seem to see it...

DAWeb

And that is her opinion, not fact

Yes, DAWeb, right again.
Therein, lies the "singularity" of both statements.

That may be the longest name for a file I have ever seen. Where do you get your office supplies? Or did you mean computer file?

Sorry, Bill, but I won't lie and kiss Bush's rear...he's as harmful as the worst of leaders on the planet.

I won't lie and kiss Bush's rear...he's as harmful as the worst of leaders on the planet.

A very easy statement for you to make since you don't have to back it up.

A very easy statement for you to make since you don't have to back it up.

Yes, it is very easy indeed when the facts speak for themselves.

Basically Republicans are now in the terminal phases of using Bush. As with Nixon, when his corruption of democracy subsumed his Presidency he was made a martyr to the cause, giving ammo to his devotees such as Dick Cheney. We'll hear for years now how Bush was screwed by Democrats as a rallying cry for the feeble and resentful.

If ever there were a sad excuse for a man who peed all over himself and his nation 'tis the Shrub.

PH, there is one silver lining to Bush winning in 2004...it forced Bush to have to wear his second term like a scarlet letter. Had Kerry won, everything coming to roost now would be his fault and Bush would have gone down revered by many, many more than now do so.

JonesGirl,

I'd have to agree in a general sense, but Bush and his cronies will never own up to the mess that they've created any way. If Bush took a dump on the Pope in broad daylight while crashing a Hummer into a crowd of blind schoolchildren they'd still say that he was a saint. The non-reality-based community will continue to focus on fiction, so you may as well get someone who can focus on the facts in ASAP and take their heat - they're going to give it no matter what.

Facts such as these...?

George Bush ran in 2000 on the promise to bring "honor and dignity to the White House" and to "clean up the toxic environment in Washington, D.C." While Bush's critics will never allow this to be accepted, George Bush has done just that.

-Worst corruption in American history
- Worst management of the economy since the Great Depression
- Worst deficits
- Second most expensive war in American history with nothing to show for it except massive profits by corrupt war contractors
- Osama Bin Laden is free while my friends' remains from 9/11 are in a Staten Island landfill
- An unprecedented attack on the U.S. that was known about in advance and ignored
- Manufacturing losses to China completely unopposed
- Record profits by oil companies unchallenged
- Annihilation of the Middle Class
- Elimination of competitive market forces at an unprecedented level
- Near-zero management of mortgage crisis
- Destruction of America's reputation abroad
- The dollar is in the toilet
- Our bridges, schools and public transportation are a joke due to underinvestment
- Billions spent on stupid weapons that can't stop a boxcutter from getting on a plane
- Stripping to get on a plane
- Treating toothpaste and shampoo as deadly weapons to get on a plane
- Having no air traffic control to manage planes once you're in the plane
- "Heckuva job, Brownie"
- Allowing other nations to take the lead in stem cell research while we wallow in the dark ages
- Record healthcare costs - and record health care company profits
- Highest infant death rate of industrialized nations - while claiming that "right to life" shows how we care about the sanctity of life
- Pretending that "near bear" is safe for a raging alcoholic
- Ignoring the need for leadership in making peace in Palestine for seven years
- Ignoring Colin Powell at virtually every turn
- Considering a sitting President catching up on his seventh grade reading as "boning up" on intellectual stuff
- Considering any election in the past seven years as being untainted
- More money spent on erection drug ads than on AIDS research
- Having to put up with people who think that this is all just fine with them

More money spent on erection drug ads than on AIDS research

Is the Bush administration funding those advertisements?

This is the kind of nonsense that hammers Bush everyday. It must get frustrating when after seven years he still doesn't respond to this garbage.

In other words, having failed to create any semblance of a record of achievement - at least as documented in your factless article - you are content to look at the facts and to call it a source of justified martyrdom.

I can't think of a better example of unjustified self-pity if I had asked for it.

OK Partisan, I'm going to try to reply to most of your points. If you disagree, please comment.

-Worst corruption in American history

Proof?

- Worst management of the economy since the Great Depression

Really? Why?

- Worst deficits

Deficits have been going up almost every single year.

- Second most expensive war in American history with nothing to show for it except massive profits by corrupt war contractors

Wars get more expensive. I agree we shouldn't have (maybe) gone in in the first place, but we're there now. We owe it to the Iraqi people to fix the mess.

- Osama Bin Laden is free while my friends' remains from 9/11 are in a Staten Island landfill

And we're not looking for him?

- An unprecedented attack on the U.S. that was known about in advance and ignored

Known in advance? I disagree.

- Manufacturing losses to China completely unopposed

I'm not sure I understand this one. Are you saying that we're losing our building business to China? If so, should the government really be stopping that?

- Record profits by oil companies unchallenged

Why should the government challenge oil profits?

- Annihilation of the Middle Class

Proof?

- Elimination of competitive market forces at an unprecedented level

Proof?

- Near-zero management of mortgage crisis

There is evidence that both Hoover and Roosevelt may have hurt more than helped with their policies during the Depression. Maybe a no-intervention policy here would be in order.

- Destruction of America's reputation abroad

Yes, the terrorists hate us. They already hated us. But most of the other countries hated us before Bush.

- The dollar is in the toilet

So that's automatically the president's fault?

- Our bridges, schools and public transportation are a joke due to underinvestment

I don't know about public transportation, but I agree with the schools. We need to start privatizing more.

- Billions spent on stupid weapons that can't stop a boxcutter from getting on a plane

How do you know? You can only see the weapons that have been released to the public. Many are still in testing.

- Stripping to get on a plane

I don't strip to get on a plane. There may have been isolated incidents.

- Treating toothpaste and shampoo as deadly weapons to get on a plane

I agree that that's going a little TOO far.

- Having no air traffic control to manage planes once you're in the plane

Proof?

- "Heckuva job, Brownie"

Yup, that was a botched job. But name a president that HASN'T had an official have problems.

- Allowing other nations to take the lead in stem cell research while we wallow in the dark ages

And then he proved the US scientists wrong when the breakthrough came to let us use skin cells instead of killing fetuses.

- Record healthcare costs - and record health care company profits

I agree. Let's start privatizing.

- Highest infant death rate of industrialized nations - while claiming that "right to life" shows how we care about the sanctity of life

What's the infant death rate from?

- Ignoring the need for leadership in making peace in Palestine for seven years

I thought it wasn't the US' job to mess in foreign affairs?

- Ignoring Colin Powell at virtually every turn

About what?

- Considering a sitting President catching up on his seventh grade reading as "boning up" on intellectual stuff

?

- Considering any election in the past seven years as being untainted

2000 was questionable. 2004 was not.

- More money spent on erection drug ads than on AIDS research

?

Andrew.

Mars313 does a pretty good job of responding with the link he posted below.

OK Partisan, I'm going to try to reply to most of your points. If you disagree, please comment.

-Worst corruption in American history

Proof?

- Worst management of the economy since the Great Depression

Really? Why?

- Worst deficits

Deficits have been going up almost every single year.

- Second most expensive war in American history with nothing to show for it except massive profits by corrupt war contractors

Wars get more expensive. I agree we shouldn't have (maybe) gone in in the first place, but we're there now. We owe it to the Iraqi people to fix the mess.

- Osama Bin Laden is free while my friends' remains from 9/11 are in a Staten Island landfill

And we're not looking for him?

- An unprecedented attack on the U.S. that was known about in advance and ignored

Known in advance? I disagree.

- Manufacturing losses to China completely unopposed

I'm not sure I understand this one. Are you saying that we're losing our building business to China? If so, should the government really be stopping that?

- Record profits by oil companies unchallenged

Why should the government challenge oil profits?

- Annihilation of the Middle Class

Proof?

- Elimination of competitive market forces at an unprecedented level

Proof?

- Near-zero management of mortgage crisis

There is evidence that both Hoover and Roosevelt may have hurt more than helped with their policies during the Depression. Maybe a no-intervention policy here would be in order.

- Destruction of America's reputation abroad

Yes, the terrorists hate us. They already hated us. But most of the other countries hated us before Bush.

- The dollar is in the toilet

So that's automatically the president's fault?

- Our bridges, schools and public transportation are a joke due to underinvestment

I don't know about public transportation, but I agree with the schools. We need to start privatizing more.

- Billions spent on stupid weapons that can't stop a boxcutter from getting on a plane

How do you know? You can only see the weapons that have been released to the public. Many are still in testing.

- Stripping to get on a plane

I don't strip to get on a plane. There may have been isolated incidents.

- Treating toothpaste and shampoo as deadly weapons to get on a plane

I agree that that's going a little TOO far.

- Having no air traffic control to manage planes once you're in the plane

Proof?

- "Heckuva job, Brownie"

Yup, that was a botched job. But name a president that HASN'T had an official have problems.

- Allowing other nations to take the lead in stem cell research while we wallow in the dark ages

And then he proved the US scientists wrong when the breakthrough came to let us use skin cells instead of killing fetuses.

- Record healthcare costs - and record health care company profits

I agree. Let's start privatizing.

- Highest infant death rate of industrialized nations - while claiming that "right to life" shows how we care about the sanctity of life

What's the infant death rate from?

- Ignoring the need for leadership in making peace in Palestine for seven years

I thought it wasn't the US' job to mess in foreign affairs?

- Ignoring Colin Powell at virtually every turn

About what?

- Considering a sitting President catching up on his seventh grade reading as "boning up" on intellectual stuff

?

- Considering any election in the past seven years as being untainted

2000 was questionable. 2004 was not.

- More money spent on erection drug ads than on AIDS research

Let me address some of these, Andrew:

From the bottom up--there were irregularities in 2004 and they all benefitted the Repubs. That isn't queestionable to you? Then there was the issue of Blackwell being both on Bush's campaign staff and the Sec of State in OH and the CEO of Diebold promising the election to Bush.

The infant death rate is largely from inadequate pre-birth care of the woman and it is shameful that it is the highest of any industrialized nation, given our wealth.

The skin cell use instead of stem cells is valuable, but not a replacement for stem cells in any way, at least not according to scientists who work in the field. Bush's refusal to allow research with federal dollars on more than a few stem cell lines has hurt research and delayed who knows how many cures/treatments.

The issue with Brownie and Katrina is a result of Bush appointing buddies, not those with any experience, to positions. Loyalty is all that matters to the guy.

Boxcutters and worse routinely make it through security, but I guess you like paying millions for a band-aid solution so you feel better.

Bush was warned about Osama and a potential attack and chose vacation after being in office all of 7 months. Pretty pathetic. And Bush has commented on several occassions that Osama isn't a priority.

And Clinton was pretty respected by world leaders..Bush has turned the US into an international bully.

Thanks, Jonesie, they don't particularly care about the facts but at least we can try.

Heh...very true, PH. Didn't mean to jump in, but I had a break on the job and felt like typing a bit :)

I think I'll let history decide what type of leader he was not the media, Hollywood, and the many detractors around the world.

So Rob, you'd trust history writers over those who are living through this admin? There is a reason he has so many detractors.

Jones girl I do respect whay you are saying and have lived through the same things you have. And yet i still don't have the same hard feeling you and so many have. Say what you want about George Bush but because you and so many other dislike what he has done does not discount the good that has come too. I am in Iraq and seen some big changes in just a few short months. And yes I know Iraq isn't the only issue but it is a big one. No he was not the best president but I also know he was not the worst.

There is a reason he has so many detractors.

There is also a reason he has just as many supporters. Don't take this as me disagreeing take it as pointing out the obvious. All any of us can do is hope for a better future no matter who is in office. So until all of us put aside the partisan garbage and hope for decent leadership no matter what party they are in this country will still be as "bad" as so many say it is.

What good has come of Bush's presidency? I see a failed war/occupation and much hatred of our country around the world.

Bush is a prime leader in the area of partisanship--what has he done to extend himself to us Dems? Bullying? and his supporters are few and far between as they wake up to the damage that this man and his admin have done to this country and the world.

Bush needs a trial in the Hague.

Now Jones I do not think it was that extreme. But hell we all are allowed to our opinion right. I don't see Bush as very bad and you do no biggie. I mean I am in Iraq and it sure doesn't feel "failed" but hell I guess the media and the people sitting at home watching TV or reading the papers must be right. I don't pretend for one minute he was the best president ever, But I also am not going to slap a lot of the B/S labels like many seem so happy to do. I am an optimist and think the country will be fine, and don't see it as being as bad off as many pretend it is. Thanks for your opinion and I am sure I am going to hear more.

Your opinion on Iraq is valuable, Rob, but I will stick with those who are studied in such things as well as the history of the region for a context of what Bush has done there...he's created a ground for more terrorists and given many a reason to hate us. Is the infrastructure in Iraq anywhere near where it was before we invaded? How many Iraqis are now refugees thanks to this war? Bush went in with no plan and still has none--he got lucky that his surge coincided with al Sadr's cease fire, though.

The labels slapped on Bush aren't BS, they are reality. It will take decades to undo the messes he has made of things.

I understand, but like I said I have seen it here bad, and right now cease fire or not there is a lot of improvement. I guess it is all in how you look at things and it very obvious to me we see it differently. I think he wasn't as bad as you and others think. But it is my opinion just like it is your opinion that he was "bad'. We can argue about this all day neither of us budging or we can move on and agree to disagree it is up to you. I got nothing but time:)

And you have a gun :p

I'm happy to hear that there is improvement, but I guess my upset-ness is that there was no point in breaking it to begin with...yes, Saddam was horrid, but he was contained. We were sold this war with a truckload of lies and those who planned the invasion had no real plans. I wonder if we were to take an honest vote tomorrow how many Iraqis, refugee and still there, would say that they are truly better off than they were before we stuck our noses in?

I know, as a soldier, you have a better view and more on the line than I do, but it just seems to me that this whole Iraq misadventure was a giant error of judgment. Heck, even Cheney thought so in the early 90s!

I guess you are partially right, Iraq might be better today if there was no invasion. But I think the future could be better for all involved if we give it more time. Like I said that is my opinion for observations I have made in the past 5 months or so. I can't say whether thing will be better, But I do hope they are and have a pretty good feeling the will be. I appreciate your passion and the fact you care about the lives of others. I think we all do want a better world, we just have different ideas on how to make things better. So we can agree to disagree. Thanks for spending a little time arguing with me I enjoyed it:)

Thanks, Rob...I guess my fear is that we will cut n'run. Look at Afghanistan, the Taliban is coming back and it is dissolving to what it was pre-invasion. I had little issue with invanding there, though I think if we were serious about going after those responsible for 9/11, we needed to invade Saudi Arabia.

I hope some good comes out of Bush's time, it is simply hard to see what it could be :)

Look at Afghanistan, the Taliban is coming back

TJG - so then you should support Rudy ---he has just come out with his plan for stepping up our military there.

It is too late there, Lisa. Why should the Afghan people believe that we will actually stick around this time? Rudy's plan is another Repub band-aid solution to a complex problem.

No, I think he's saying that he'll trust them over you.

So, Otto, why should anyone listen to you or trust you? Are you an expert?

Yes, Rob,............. Given "enough time"...... all things will work out....

But, as in Vietnam.....We would be best off....Them..... an us... watching at a distance.

Lisa, I am stating a simple fact--the "surge" came to the news at the same time as al-Sadr's cease-fire. This is reality, I'm sorry if it is uncomfortable for you or anyone in the military.

The real shame is that you ignore simple realities like that, looking for anyway to absolve Bush, clinging to any possible thread to justify your admiration of this man, who, if leading any other country, you would hate.

He agreed to a 6 month cease-fire...but that doesn't fit into your cannonize Bush perspective, does it?

My point is, you have to be ignorant of simple facts to think Bush is doing any good.

TJG, Why is it so hard for you to discuss things like Bush without getting into personal insults? It seems to be the norm for you.

I'm stating a fact, DA.

No TJG, you have consistently added personal insults to nearly every comment. It is a shame to see really.

Your opinion might mean something, DA, if you went after alleged insults by your side of the aisle and didn't just troll liberals.

I'm still waiting for you to bring something, anything to any discussion except your diversions and pats on the back for conservatives. But I won't hold my breath.

You should try the World Politics Forum at Craigslist, the Repubs there match you well.

TJG, you should actually ignore me if you say you are going to, rather then continually lobbing insults at me. What do you gain from the constant consistent personal attacks on me other then to expose your own negative attitude?

You responded to me here, DA. If you don't want a dialogue, then don't hop into a thread and address me.

My attitude is fine, but you seem to have a poor reputation here, based on responses you get.

Ahh, so in otherwords you feel my reputation is in danger from the likes of you. now that is funny. I have been polite, and engaging and you have made personal attack after personal attack. What does that say about you?

Polite and engaging?

In what universe?

TheJonesGirl,

Do you find it as amusing as I do that someone accuses you of throwing out personal insults when all you are doing is stating facts, yet when I accuse the same person of throwing out personal insults for making assumptions about my personal education, he insists that he is not being insulting?

Just wondering.

QED

just a continuation of personal attack against me and complete avoidance of the topic. Seems to be par for the course with some tho.

Amusing, yes, Kevin. Surprising, no. DA's built up a niche on the Vine doing this :)

See what I mean, it is getting so TJG has trouble posting without mentioning me...

just a continuation of personal attack against me and complete avoidance of the topic. Seems to be par for the course with some tho.

DA, you haven't said anything on-topic yet.

See what I mean, it is getting so TJG has trouble posting without mentioning me...

Yet every comment of yours so far has had "TJG" in it.....

From what I can tell, this is YOUR pattern, not hers. You jumped into the middle of something she was saying to someone else, and she responded, and now you are trying to fault her for replying to you, when we all know that is all you wanted to begin with.

Mars313, how chivalrous of you to come to her defense.

Mars313, how chivalrous of you to come to her defense.

Nah, just fair since you came to aid Otto.

Since you didn't argue my points, I'll take it that you agree with me. Glad to see you are coming around.

Yup, I just have a HUGE crush on her. LOL

nice try Mars, really

nice try Mars, really

at what? what did I "try"? Are you saying I'm wrong about what I said about you? Because that can be backed up if you just scroll up to where you jumped in....

Let's recap:

14.4 - You get mad because somebody doesn't like Daddy Bush so you jump in with a personal attack:

TJG, Why is it so hard for you to discuss things like Bush without getting into personal insults? It seems to be the norm for you.

14.6 - She says she is stating a fact, and you reply as if she offended you (when you were not in the conversation until you were offended):

No TJG, you have consistently added personal insults to nearly every comment. It is a shame to see really.

14.8 - You continue to whine and play the victim by pretending that she offended you first, when in fact, you rudely jumped into a discussion that had nothing to do with you... and why? because you wanted to have the "personal attacks" debate again, using it as a straw-man because you have no argument for the topic of the article.

TJG, you should actually ignore me if you say you are going to, rather then continually lobbing insults at me. What do you gain from the constant consistent personal attacks on me other then to expose your own negative attitude?

14.10 - After she says that other people don't seem to think too highly of you (which is a popular opinion on Newsvine) you try to claim it as a personal attack, when it is an observation. Once again, little man needs to be the victim for this game to work. Meanwhile, you slide an attack into the complaint about personal attacks.

Ahh, so in otherwords you feel my reputation is in danger from the likes of you. now that is funny. I have been polite, and engaging and you have made personal attack after personal attack. What does that say about you?

14.13 - You actually fabricate someone called "QED" (who I never saw post anything in this part of the thread) to complain to about your mistreatment. Then you claim TJG is "avoiding the topic" when you have yet to address the topic yourself. Up to this point in the thread, your only topic is TJG, so how is she off-topic when she is the topic?

just a continuation of personal attack against me and complete avoidance of the topic. Seems to be par for the course with some tho.

P.S. - it's "though"

14.15 - You beat the hell out of the dead horse that is the victim card, and continue to go off-topic in hopes of gaining some right-wing sympathy, but none of your boyfriends have come to your rescue. This is in response to her mentioning (once again, to someone else... not you) your bad reputation on Newsvine, which is factual.

See what I mean, it is getting so TJG has trouble posting without mentioning me...

You should learn to stay out of other people's conversations. it's rude. I'm surprised your mother didn't teach you manners.

Mars, I am well aware that you are unlikely to admit to seeing the insults put out there by TJG toward myself and others. I honestly don't care that you don't see them.

As to your own personal attack on me I have flagged your comment as inflammatory and will merely suggest that you should review the CoH.

This is a public forum and as such this is not a matter of 'other peoples conversations'. Much as you did not feel you needed to stay out of it either. (note how I do not attempt to chastise you to stay out of other peoples conversations here.)

Mars, I am well aware that you are unlikely to admit to seeing the insults put out there by TJG toward myself and others. I honestly don't care that you don't see them.

I don't think you know the definition of insult. You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you is insulting you.

As to your own personal attack on me I have flagged your comment as inflammatory and will merely suggest that you should review the CoH.

Which is what you should have done when she "attacked" you too, but you knew it wasn't an attack. You should also review the CoH.

This is a public forum and as such this is not a matter of 'other peoples conversations'. Much as you did not feel you needed to stay out of it either. (note how I do not attempt to chastise you to stay out of other peoples conversations here.)

That doesn't mean it isn't rude. Learn some manners or expect attacks.

Strange. After reading this encounter, I can't get the image of Bill O'Reilly out of my head. Pardon me, I must go dig up some Keith Olbermann clips on YouTube to cleanse my mental pallet.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats or the so called "liberal media." It has everything to do with the choices he made.

But where would the Repubs be if they couldn't play victim? They might--GASP--have to take responsibility for their actions.

Yeah, right.

Fair enough, though I did specify "win the presidency"

No, actually you said "win the presidency with a majority of votes ." You can "split hairs all you want, but for a "well researched article" as some of your friends have claimed, it's odd that the reality doesn't square with your claim that Bush "fooled them all again by being the first candidate to win the presidency with a majority of votes since his father did in 1988 Call it "splitting hairs" all you want, it was outright wrong. And perhaps that's a common problem in the conservative right nowadays.. wrong comes down to "splitting hairs." I don't expect you to admit to making a mistake, that would go against everything Bush stands for, but please don't "split hairs" with me, Gore won the popular vote in 2000. And as much as it must grate on you, it's a matter of historical record.... Gore won the popular vote. You can write all the feel good historical pieces on Bush you want, but when you make the claim that Bush was the only president since his father to win a majority of votes, you aren't splitting hairs, you're flat out wrong. Bush was among one of three presidents to get elected, despite having lost the popular vote. No amount of feel good revisionist historical perspectives such as yours will change that fact.

gore won the popular vote in 2000 but did NOT have a majority. Why do you seem to forget that simple fact? Long as you are going to split hairs you may as well do it properly.

Um, the popular vote is the majority. Winning the popular vote means that the majority of Americans voted for you. Which means, if we had gotten rid of the electoral college years ago, as we should have, as it is now archaic, Gore would have won in 2000. It's only because of the electoral college that Bush won ... and nobody's even sure if he actually did win more votes from the electoral college, since the Supreme Court declared him the victor before all votes were counted. More Americans voted for Gore in 2000 than voted for Bush. That's a fact, not an opinion, and it's well documented and undisputed.

Um, no, you are wrong. winning a majority and winning the popular vote are not the same thing. In order to win a majority you must win more then 50% of the vote. In 2000 Gore did win more votes (not electoral college votes however) then Bush but did not win more then 50% of all votes cast.

I understand that there are some out there that are still (nearly 8 years later) having a hard time coming to terms with this idea but it is the truth.

LMAO. You people sure are good at splitting hairs. Well, you use whatever definition of "majority" that you like. I'm going to go ahead and stick with the definition I learned in English class, if you don't mind:

majority: [məˈdʒo-] noun — plural majorities
the greater number

And, well, there's a reason that many of us have a hard time coming to terms with it. And that is because on November 13, 2001, the actual final tally was released from the Florida recounts. Do you know what it was? I do. Here it is: Bush: 2,915,426
Gore: 2,915,928

Those numbers are facts. Feel free to research them, they are a matter of public record. So, spin it how you like. In my mind, numbers don't lie.

In light of this info, I can't imagine why we have a hard time accepting that Bush took office. Gee, it's a mystery.

Using the popular vote argument is like saying a football team should be awarded the victory for having more total yards rather than more points.

The law is that electoral college votes determine the presidency. Arguing about popular vote is pointless.

I'm going to go ahead and stick with the definition I learned in English class, if you don't mind:

must have gone to public school...

# the property resulting from being or relating to the greater in number of two parts; the main part; "the majority of his customers prefer it ...
# (elections) more than half of the votes # the age at which persons are considered competent to manage their own affairs wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

or Dictionary.com

ma·jor·i·ty /məˈdʒɔrɪti, -ˈdʒɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[muh-jawr-i-tee, -jor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -ties.
1.the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total (opposed to minority): the majority of the population.
2.a number of voters or votes, jurors, or others in agreement, constituting more than half of the total number. 3.the amount by which the greater number, as of votes, surpasses the remainder (distinguished from plurality).
4.the party or faction with the majority vote
5.the state or time of being of full legal age: to attain one's majority.
6.the military rank or office of a major.

While I doubt that actual definitions will have any real effect I figure it never hurts to set the record straight. Perhaps you are actually interested in 'getting smarter here'.

the actual final tally was released from the Florida recounts. Do you know what it was? I do. Here it is: Bush: 2,915,426
Gore: 2,915,928

Actually the final certifiedresult from Florida was George W. Bush 2,912,790
Al Gore 2,912,253
Ralph Nader 97,421
Pat Buchanan 17,472
Harry Browne 16,102
John Hagelin 2,274
Monica G Moorehead 1,815
Howard Phillips 1,378
David McReynolds 618
James E. Harris 594

that is what the rule of Law in the USA found to be the correct numbers. Anything beyond that really has no standing or bearing.

You believe your numbers, I believe mine. I use one correct definition of majority, you use another correct definition. Neither will change our minds, and I'm certainly not going to argue meanings of words with someone who mixes up "then" and "than" and then tells me I should get smarter (you really should refrain from personal insults. I don't usually get into them at all except in direct response).

It's all pointless anyway, Bush is in office, isn't he? So, your side has already won. I feel he's there illegally and that a great injustice has been done, and you feel he's got every right to be there. Neither of us is going to change our minds. I care about actual numbers and you care about official numbers.

I have other articles to comment on. This one is making me angry, and it would be best if I just walk away at this point.

the actual final tally was released from the Florida recounts. Do you know what it was? I do. Here it is: Bush: 2,915,426
Gore: 2,915,928

Heh. The votes that the Supreme Court wanted counted, in any event.

LOL, telling someone to get smarter is a personal insult? now that is funny.

This one is making me angry, and it would be best if I just walk away at this point.

Hint: Don't Post Angry!

You're baiting me. And, look, it worked, here I am posting again. The insult was not telling me to get smarter, I simply mentioned that you did suggest that I do. The insult was hidden in your snide remark, "must have gone to public school". I didn't, actually, but many of my friends did, and I didn't appreciate the implication that they are in some way inferior and don't know what they are talking about. And I simply pointed out that perhaps there were some flaws in your education as well. We're all on equal ground here.

Also, I'm well aware that it's not good to post angry. I was debating calmly, but I said I'm "starting to get angry", which is why I said I was walking away, and it's why I waited to calm down before I wrote this comment in an attempt to straighten out your twisting of my words. Not for your benefit, because I know that you and I will never agree, but for the benefit of anyone else reading. Now, I'm going to respond to your bait below, and then I will truly be silent in this thread and let you have your last words.

There are plenty of flaws in my education (I did go to public school Too bad you don't get the Joke) and I am not afraid to acknowledge and correct them. I have not insulted you and yet you perceive an insult. That is truly a shame.

I will read your response below. (not sure why you feel baited. Do you not like my new tag? You were the inspiration behind it.

Hint: Don't Post Angry

You are a master baiter, I'll give you that, but this liberal fish has had his fill of worms. Consider this a nibble. The bobber almost sinks, but then returns to the surface, and remains undisturbed ...

Please forgive me for attempting to educate you and engage you.

-Master Baiter

Hint: Don't Post Angry!

Otto,

Yes, a plurality, aka, a relative majority or a simple majority. It is a type of majority, and we are splitting hairs, all of us. Your statement stands correct, grammatically and mathematically, yet so does mine, and so does Jim's. You said "a majority," yet failed to specify which kind. Isn't language fun?

Glad I could help. I'm only partisan as far as the truth goes. I refuse to stretch it or bend it to make my point. I like to rely on facts.

Liberal bias. That's hysterical. I keep hearing that. If you want to know what liberal news sounds like, turn on Air America. Air America, though my station of choice, admittedly has a liberal bias. They don't sound like the mainstream media, cause, like, the mainstream media doesn't have a liberal bias. If they did, I'd probably take them seriously.

It's much more noticeable to you because you are on the other side of it. Fanatically firm? Sorry, throwing in your opinion of his level of competence to make this point demonstrates that your own apples don't fall far from the tree you are planting here.

Do you think Fox News has a conservative bias? Or do the attacks on Fox from the Left represent the same pattern that you attribute to complaints about the liberal media bias?

I love it when people see themselves as above the very fray they observe...and they are not.

If self-righteousness is a beverage, it's time to put your cup down.

What's really amusing to me is you've attributed a bunch of opinions to me I don't have.

As a matter of fact liberal bias does exist in the media sometimes. When did I say otherwise?
This wasn't some argument for us all to come together Otto. Your right, I think he's an idiot, you don't.

My point, listen carefully please, is this:
We've all made up our damn minds. Nobody is going to change them at this point. We are completely and totally polarized, and there is nothing left to say.

I hope you got that.

sounds like more of the old 'he is just so stupid. Oh and he totally tricks us over and over and over again too!'

Just think about what you are saying...

As I said in my previous comment, DA, I'm walking away from this article now. What I said above is more of the same because it's more of the truth. He is stupid AND he lies to us. I never said he tricked me. I said he mislead Americans because most Americans, bless their hearts, believe what their president tells them.

Two thirds of our nation sees that, and I don't have time to argue with the one third that choose to turn a blind eye. But you go ahead and have fun continuing your debate.

Interesting, so far you have shown no interest in debate. You have presented feelings of anger and dismay, but not facts at all.

Hint: Don't Post Angry!

DA, see above.

Peace out.

I almost clipped it to the Satire group, but then realized he was being serious.

The Satire tag was the first I looked for. Then, having been off the vine for a while, went looking for a group I couldn't find but remember was started for those who purposefully write an article taking the opposite position of the one they would normally take.

But, alas, he's actually serious!

The article was not published to the Propaganda group. It was clipped to it by Partisan Hack.

My bad for misinterpreting the Published To links, though the clipping to the Propaganda group is still warranted.

Lies! Liberal media! teh Liberals! 111!!!!1111

Many of us don't believe that was legit either. But it's a moot point. I lived in Ohio at the time. I saw firsthand the effect Blackwell's partisan politics had in ensuring Bush's second term. Call me what you want, I was there, and those are the facts as I see them. But, unfortunately, I can't change the past, so all I can do is look forward to a fair election in '08 ... but I'm not holding my breath, I guess I'll just have to see how it plays out.

America knew what they were electing.

In a sense, America didn't know. They knew the spin Bush was putting out there, which more and more is showing to have been smoke and mirrors at best.

And there was monkey business in 2004--how else can all errors going towards one side? Or Kerry's large lead that suddenly vanished? Or Blackwell and the voting machines? Or Diebold's CEO saying he would guarantee Bush the win in OH?

What are you babbling about?