Thread: bye, George

Now that we've rail-roaded the scumbag Bush out of office, in what amounts to political tar and feathers, I thought I would REMIND all of you, why we did it.

HERE is why we did it:



This is a RECENT picture, yes?

This is George W Bush, WHILE he was President of the United States.

CARRYING a flag - INCORRECTLY I might add - and FLIPPING OFF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

THAT is what George W Bush represents. He stands for FLIPPING OFF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

He's been doin' this type of thing to his constituents, for a LONG time. I have a similar picture of him, WHILE he was Governor of Texas, flipping off a Texan on live television.

This kind of thing, makes a MOCKERY of the concept of "representative government".

And I STILL want to know, why conservatives stood up for this idiot, for so long.

This picture above, should show you what I've been telling y'all for a LONG time now - the man is a MENACE to the People of the United States.

God Bless America, and let's hope our new guy, is a LOT better than the old guy.

Actually, the thing of him flipping off a texan in texas is a joke. He was doing it to one of his campaign staffers as a joke.

Nonsqtr, people like YOU are the biggest menace to this country! Do you follow you idiot beliefs so blindly that you've allowed to sink to crap like this?!

How in Hell did President Bush get 'railroaded' out of office?! Do you seeing him pull some Putin crap trying to alter the constitution to allow for additional terms? No, you don't. He's ending his term in the same way your buddy Clinton did, constitutionally, and the sme way Obama will in 2012 if he even makes it that far under the same constitution that elected him.

Now, if this picture of yours (so aptly entitled 'fubush') is actually real cause I sure as hell don't, then perhaps a bit of perspective is due. Not too many people raised a fuss when Bill Clinton shot his load off at media reporters, hardly a professional attitude, and neither did anyone say a word when Obama pulled one of those ambiguous flip of the fingers during a speach in Jacksonville, Fl (that too is a load of crap). How, nonsqtr, imagine you're the most targeted president in history for whatever reason...wouldn't you be slightly miffed everynow or then?

A good number of conservatives don't fervently support him, they support Bush over Kerry or Gore, God forbid they were elected! I'm conservative and I don't support Bush himself or his policies, but I would never support Gore's or Kerry's either.

Need I say more, and I assure you I likely will cause I know how you brainless liberals like to bicker and perpetually bitch about things, I'll debate your idiocracy later, nonsqtr, because just about every half baked thought process running through your mind when you posted this BS is just that. Dumb, mindless idiocracy...

Originally Posted by Bones

Nonsqtr, people like YOU are the biggest menace to this country! Do you follow you idiot beliefs so blindly that you've allowed to sink to crap like this?!

How in Hell did President Bush get 'railroaded' out of office?! Do you seeing him pull some Putin crap trying to alter the constitution to allow for additional terms? No, you don't. He's ending his term in the same way your buddy Clinton did, constitutionally, and the sme way Obama will in 2012 if he even makes it that far under the same constitution that elected him.

Need I say more, and I assure you I likely will cause I know how you brainless liberals like to bicker and perpetually bitch about things, I'll debate your idiocracy later, nonsqtr, because just about every half baked thought process running through your mind when you posted this BS is just that. Dumb, mindless idiocracy...

Hm.. 18 years old... 80 posts.... Okay, I'll forgive you. You're young and you're new, so, fair enough. :laughing:

Pal, I'm not sure quite how to say this... hm... so, I'll start here. I'm what you might call a "Constitutionalist". (I never knew it till just recently, but that's apparently what they call people like me). I've been a lifelong registered Republican. Never been a Dem, never even VOTED Dem, not ONCE, until just this election. Politically, I consider myself to be about halfway between an old-school conservative, and a libertarian. I'm a conservative "except" on the social part, where I consider that it's none of government's business.

See, and, I'm not gonna contest your post. You said your peace, and that's all fair.

I will make this OBSERVATION though, if you'll allow me:

If you see words like mine (or a post like mine), and your head goes immediately to "godless liberal", then I submit THIS, for your consideration:

YOU HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED!

You've been brainwashed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Think about it. The proof, is right in front of you. I'm not a liberal, pal. I'm a lifelong registered Republican. That, is a better of public record, and I'll be happy to PM you my creds if you'd like to check it out for yourself.

See, "I", "MY" battle in this whole thing, is to stop the brainwashing, and try to ENLIGHTEN my Kool-Aid-drinking pals, on BOTH sides of the aisle.

I say some VERY controversial stuff, and most of the reason I say it, is just to try to get you to THINK a little. What I do around here (besides floatin' anti-Bush propaganda, just to keep the concept in everyone's faces), is I "challenge models". If someone's gonna stick a political model in my face, the very first thing I do, is try to find a counter-example.

See, so, you're young, you'll learn. It's nice to make your acquaintance. And thanks for takin' the time to respond. I don't hate ANYONE, pal. I hate what they DO. I stand up for the political PRINCIPLE, not for the Party, or even the Person necessarily.

So, when I see a guy who's a confessed war criminal, still occupying the highest office in the land, I wanna make sure I know WHY that is, and that way, I can decide what kinda words I want to use, when I communicate with the American People.

I have a choice word for George W Bush: SCUMBAG. I don't mean that "personally", I mean that POLITICALLY. His "person" has nothin' to do with it, really. It's what he "represents", politically. It's what he "does", that matters.

Nah, pal - you know this, right? The Neo-Cons were originally a bunch of Democrats. They couldn't make it in their own party, so they went lookin' for greener pastures. They sold the well-meaning Republicans a BILL OF GOODS, is what happened. And they found a globalist PATSY, in the form of George W Bush, to do their bidding, by convincing him that they somehow had "mutual interests".

Well, they DON'T. Anyone who's out there torturing people, has NO mutual interest with me. NONE. And, I don't know how you feel about that, but I will NOT countenance my President, torturing people in my name.

That is not within his authority, Power, or decision-making capability.

Such a thing, is NOT his decision to make, and if he makes it, he is VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION.

See pal, you gotta READ the contract. The President, does NOT get to define what a terrorist is, and he does NOT get to decide what we do with 'em. Both of those things, are EXPLICITLY mentioned in the Constitution.

My concern with Bushie, is not so much that he's a political asshole, but rather, that he seems to think he can thumb his nose at the rules. And THAT, makes everyone ELSE, think that they can do it too! 'Cause Georgie is the LEADER, and if he can do it, then so can I - that's how these things go. That is HUMAN NATURE.

So, we need to hold him accountable for his political transgressions.

That is my take, and I stand by it.

The man needs to be held accountable.

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Hm.. 18 years old... 80 posts.... Okay, I'll forgive you. You're young and you're new, so, fair enough. :laughing:

Nonsqtr, you are being characteristically generous. 18 is more than old enough to be held accountable for your views and actions. Several of us, Zarathustra included, are under 18, and we expect no quarter.

Also, you might remind the gentleman concerned that there is no such word as 'idiocracy' (unless he means to coin a new word to signify government by idiots - hmmm, now I come to think of it ... )

Now that we've rail-roaded the scumbag Bush out of office, in what amounts to political tar and feathers, I thought I would REMIND all of you, why we did it.

Is that what you call it? "rail-roaded"? From where I'm sitting, George Bush got elected not once, but twice, and launched into his second term with a vengeance. He polluted every nook and cranny of our government with his cronyism. His actions will take us decades to recover from. The guy dominated the landscape for 8 solid years and if his would-be successor hadn't picked Sara Palin as a running mate, the election would have been closer. "Rail-roaded"?

Originally Posted by Leo

Nonsqtr, you are being characteristically generous. 18 is more than old enough to be held accountable for your views and actions. Several of us, Zarathustra included, are under 18, and we expect no quarter.

Also, you might remind the gentleman concerned that there is no such word as 'idiocracy' (unless he means to coin a new word to signify government by idiots - hmmm, now I come to think of it ... )

These "young conservatives" are an interesting phenomenon.

I'm kinda noticing the avatar though (nice one, by the way), and thinkin' to myself that maybe there's somethin' "more" than just simple conservatism goin' on here.

But hey, that's okay. This political debate thing is kinda interesting. I like to be on good terms with a wide variety of people. In an ordinary context, I probably don't discuss politics very much. I "listen", when someone wants to tell me, but I don't really volunteer my opinion unless someone asks.

This place though, I use a whole different strategy. You guys are great for "floating" stuff, 'cause I know you'll tell me EXACTLY what you think, honestly and without sparing anything in the description. That is GREAT, that is SO valuable - part of the problem I have "usually", with these things, is that people pull punches 'cause they don't want to offend me. Right? They try to be "politically correct" somehow - and my take is, I value the information MUCH more than I don't like being offended. "Being offended", that takes about a micro-second to get over. My head goes there for about THREE seconds, and then it comes right back. "Most" of the time. Once in a while I find something to be "really" offended about, but that's rare, those are few and far between.

But "politically" offended, that's a different thing. That has more to do with a "theoretical" interpretation of how things should work around here. And, all I can tell you is, I'm a scientist by training and education, and I've seen EXACTLY how human nature operates around this issue of "model-building". What tends to happen with people, is they LOVE to come up with new models, but they FORGET, why the old models were there in the first place. And, in model-speak, that means they're "not paying attention to some of the constraints", which is TYPICAL, and UNDERSTANDABLE. It's just "human nature", is what it is.

And, this is what I see in something like the Neo-Con "political philosophy". It's really quite fascinating, actually. This guy Leo Strauss, he didn't necessarily consider that he was comin' up with anything "new", but OTHER people thought that of him, and so, some of these clowns thought they were dealing with a brand new political model! Well... it may have been new "for the United States", but it certainly isn't new in history! And, it's rather astounding, that these guys wouldn't have read through the history books "at least once", but that's what happens - I see "that" in science too! And I mean, it's all the same, right? Scientists, historians, politicians, we're just "people", and we all operate the same way, we all got more or less the same 'blueprint" for how we handle these things.

You know, so it is FASCINATING to me, to see the relationship between how this goes on at the "political" level, and what happens at the "personal" level. The "true believer", he fascinates me. The guy who's gonna stand up for George W Bush "even now", he fascinates me. ALL of these ostriches (the "head-in-the-sand" types), they fascinate me. I'm trying to figure out how a person GETS that way, 'cause I mean, I see NO operational advantage in that. NONE!

Originally Posted by splansing

"Rail-roaded"?

Oh, that? Well, yeah! "Railroaded" would be an accurate description, I'd say.

My take is, the MAIN reason John McCain lost the election, is that he still had Neo-Cons hangin' around. If the American People actually BELIEVED that McCain could bring any kinda "change" to the White House, he might have run a much closer race.

But a 2/3 vote, that's.... yeah. "Railroaded". That's a landslide. That doesn't happen a lot, in American Politics. That's almost enough for a Constitutional Amendment, and you know how hard THAT is!

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Oh, that? Well, yeah! "Railroaded" would be an accurate description, I'd say.

But a 2/3 vote, that's.... yeah. "Railroaded". That's a landslide. That doesn't happen a lot, in American Politics. That's almost enough for a Constitutional Amendment, and you know how hard THAT is!

Hummm... a landslide?
popular vote: Obama 52.6% - McCain 46.1% that's 6.5% differential.

Well... that is bigger than Kennedy's 0.1% win over Nixon or Carter's 2.1% win over ford and even bigger than bush's 2.4% over kerry.
But it is still not as big as George H's 7.8% over Dukakis or Reagan's 18.2% over Mondale and not even close to Nixon's 23.2% over McGovern.

Oh, but wait, your comparison was for electorial college votes...

OK, lets look at the EC vote ratios:

Obama - Mccain 2.25 to 1
Kennedy -Nixon 1.38 to 1
Carter - Ford 1.24 to 1
Bush - Kerry 1.13 to 1

GHB - Dukakis 3.84 to 1
Reagan-Mondale 40.38 to 1
Nixon - McGovern 30.58 to 1

I don't see any proof of a landslide here. In fact Obama's win was low to average for presidental races.

Nonsqrt, for a self professed engineering type you seem to do alot of arm waving with very little attention to facts. .....but, hey, you DID vote for Obama....

I don't want to get on your case too hard. I'm one of those old style conservative libertarians that you claim to be.

What has happened is America's tendency to vote the rascals out. Very seldom is a member of the party in power voted in to replace a sitting member of the same party. Since WWII the only case was bush following reagan. (well, maybe also johnson following kennedy, but that was more of a sympathy vote for an assinated pres.) We have just had 2 terms of a MARGINALLY elected pres with a poor performance rating. The Democrats could have probably elected Micky Mouse this go round. If there is anything unusual here it is that McCain did as well as he did.