POLL: Is Bush a Moron?

Remove all ads!

Of course, seeing as how it was between GWB or Al Gore, I think we made the smartest choice. Besides, most Europeans probably can't understand the reasons for our involvement in the Middle Eastern crisis, so the poll is somewhat meaningless imo.

 

But then the question is: Do most americans understand why their goverment is so involved in the middle east?

 

To start off my post, Im an American(for those of you who dont know), and Im 17.

To my point, I dotn think Bush is a moron, is it because Im an American and Im supposed to be patriotic? hell no, its becuase I havent personally talked to the guy, and it doesnt matter how he sounds over the T.V. or whatever, because that is something that is prepared before hand. Personally, I dont think anyone is a moron, unless I have talked to them, or had some form of conversation with the person. A few cases I make an exception to that rule, in the case of our former president, Clinton, I thought was definitely one of the biggest mistakes Americas screwy government has made, but that is my opinion, is that the whole of americas opinion, no, do I care, again, no.

Its been mentioned already, but bears repeating, why do you critisize one person(or nation) for being not perfect, when you yourself arent perfect either. Its like the "He how hasnt sinned may cast the first stone." Fact is, no one is perfect.

 

*And the Americans fight back!!!*

I heard a interesting quote today:
"If you had just become the president, and 9/11 just happened, you would probably do the same thing Bush is doing..."


Again, why does England still have a queen?!?!?!

 

I'll throw my hat behind the 'Bush is a moron' option. You ever actually listened to him talk when he isn't reading a card his aides wrote for him? Better yet, actually write down the words he says, then read them. They are generally real words, but often make no sense in the order he spoke them.

It also seems that Bush doesn't really understand public relations. If he did, he wouldn't go on month-long vacations everyone couple of months. About a year ago he had actually spent more time on vacation than actually in Washington.

And he isn't exactly the king of public relations, either. The other day I saw him being interviewed by the press on a golf course. He used a semblance of English to condemn the latest terrorist attacks in Israel, then abruptly got a ridiculous 'I-was-just-hit-with-a-pipe' grin on his face, swelled out his chest, and told the press gathered to "Watch this drive."

I'm just thankful that we are in a presidential system, and the President is forced into moderation by the bicameral legislature. If this were a parliamentary system, and we had a half-wit as Prime Minister, we could be screwed. Since the Prime Minister, by definition, has a majority in the legislature, he could show actual initiative and act with real power.

To defend the our actual system, let me say that I cannot think of a better one in existence. I've studied Britain's parliamentary system, France's combination presidential and parliamentary system, and various communist set-ups, and none of those seems to be as well-concieved as the US presidential system.

Parliamentary systems place all power in the legislature. Britain's citizenry have no guaranteed rights, no Bill of Rights. Theoretically, all power lies with the legislature. Parliament is bound only by tradition and election; should enough people elected decide to do something, it is law. Previous laws can be used as a basis...or not. New laws can erase the old as easily as Parliament sees fit.

France's unique combo of president and parliament is bizarre. I'm not going to get into the specifics, but let's just say the executive had better be honest. If a national emergency is declared, the president actually gets to RULE BY DECREE, a la your favorite dictator. Guess who gets to declare this state of emergency? Yup, that's right: the president.

As for communism...communism is impossible with today's flow of information, at least on a large scale. The entire system is based on fooling the populace through meaningless elections, where committees select the candidates from the only allowed party. Meanwhile, an elect group, Lenin's so-called "vanguard of the revolution," run the real show. Plus the military becomes its own force, unlike in the more democratic systems.

The United States has three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. The legislature makes the laws, the executive carries them out, the judicial interprets them. Each can check the others, making it nigh impossible for a demagogue to take power.

I'm not explaining everything perfectly...it's late here, or rather early, and this is a lot to keep track of. If there's anything I've missed or something I've gotten wrong, please let me know.

 

Here is a 30 minute speech where Bush covers almost all toppics. Listen and prove(?) that he often makes no sense, like the deviant mage says...

Don't worry the link loads as he speaks. Practically no loading time.
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-04bush-audio.html

 

Britain still has a queen because we don't want to turn into some boring no-life republic. We're a monarchy, and it rocks.

 

To attract tourists and bring in money

 

Britain has a monarchy and we love it! It is there for tradition and we are the only country left (As far as I am told) with one. without it we would probably be a European country - no offence but having a monarchy sets us apart from others, alon with other things, of course

 

8people then we are a lot of countries who should be set apart from Europe. or is your monarchy different? I think you would be better of deleting that last post, just for your reputation...

 

Lol 8people get your facts right. Holland has a Royal family (the orange family) but it is not at the same status as Britains. So do many Middle-eastern 'nations'<-smirk.

 

Nooberman, where exactly do you think he doesn't make sense?

 

I don't think he doesn't make sense. . The Deviant Mage did. I just put forth the evidence and implied he didn't (or tried to). Read between the lines again. Sorry if it was confusing, Shralpadellic.

[ August 19, 2002, 17:42: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

/me puts on his facts fight helmet.

 

This is the stuff that doesn't make sense: "For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times."—Tokyo, Japan, Feb. 18, 2002

And neither does this: "There's a lot of people in the Middle East who are desirous to get into the Mitchell process. And—but first things first. The—these terrorist acts and, you know, the responses have got to end in order for us to get the framework—the groundwork—not framework, the groundwork to discuss a framework for peace, to lay the—all right."—Referring to former Sen. George Mitchell's report on Middle East peace, Crawford, Texas, Aug. 13, 2001 (Thanks to Michael Shively.)

Thanks to SlimShogun for putting up the link to Bushisms.

 

I know it's evil and probably even unfair but whenever I hear and read speeches from J.W. Bush I have to think of that marvellous brainwash-scene in Zoolander ....

Oh well, I think that really goes a bit far, even for J.W. Bush, but ... *shrugs*

[ August 20, 2002, 11:03: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

So Amarica's just in it for the oil they can get out of it, who gives a **** who they kill in the process? Did I get that about right?

 

I personally think that Bush rdestroyed America but if they vote for him then it's good enough for me.

 

I think what saracman meant was that: He said that America needs to control energy and therefor has a vital interest in bringing down Iraq, means to bring war to Iraq to gain control over the oil. If I understood him rightly that also motivates america to start a war there, or as saracman said, to play big and win big.

What he overlooks is that Iraq is practically landbound - so, considering the higly armed america-hating saudi population - the US would have a hard way to get the oil out of the Iraq once the king is dead - through hostile waters in the persian gulf. I think the US motivation to fight Saddam is different, especially considering that the oil Saddam controls is actually much less than what the Saudis and Kuwaitis have. If it's for the oil, the US would be fighting the wrong country.

Additionally the importance of (and dependance from) arab oil will decrease with the exploration of the middle asian oil - so why start a war because of Saddam's limited supplies? So I actually doubt it's the oil that makes G.W. Bush dislike Saddam nor that it is an inherited aversion.

So who knows? How about another wild speculation:
Maybe the US just want to use the opportunity to use Saudi Arabia as a base to fight Iraq as long as that is still possible - as a last chance to bring down Saddam before the Saudi King dies and his country becomes anti-western. Even though a war against Iraq would be a clear agression it might be politically necessary since Saddam still doesn't care about the UN sanctions and may indeed pose a threat to stability in the region. How prudent or imprudent it may be to start a war against Saddam - G.W. Bushs clueless rhetorics don't help to convince me about the necessity of a war now.

However, don't get me wrong, I would really like to see Saddam brought down, but there needs to be a long term solution for the problem with a US presence there to maintain stability (collapse of a regime unavoidably causes instability and it can't be in anyone's interest to have instability carried out of Iraq to the neighbouring countries). The way the US plan to go to war atm - go in, kill everything in sight and to leave is unaceptable since THAT will risk to destabilize the region much more than an Iraq ruled by Saddam could. A presence of foreign forces after the war will probably be a necessity.

Since energy seems to have such a strong impact on US policy - how about an alternative approach instead of war, saracman?
How about reducing the dependence on foreign energy by using alternative sources - like solar energy by putting solar cells on the roofs, the use hydrogen as a fuel instead of oil, or by surprising the world by efficient cars made in US or even with a general reduction in the waste of energy (by excessive use of air condition and the inability to close garage doors manually and other things that characterize the american way of life?)*

That would not only reduce the dependence on foreign energy sources but reduce the ability of the arab countries to use their oil as a tool for political pressure. Protection the environment in the own country also has a strategic impact on national and international security.



* Too sad that the europeans aren't that different in that point however, fortunately the level of abuse is lower here.

** George, Jorge, Georg, Schorschi, Schorl ... all the same

[ August 20, 2002, 19:45: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Last year, we got 8% of our oil from Iraq. That amount is easily found from other sources, and in fact the Washington Post ran an article today detailing how US companies have already reduced the amount they get from Iraq by 9/10.

I hope you all realize that the list of Bushisms is equalled by lists of poorly phrased statements from most every other political leader. There was a particularly entertaining list of Gore-isms that circulated at about the time of the '96 elections. It's very easy to catch most public speakers stumbling over words.

Deviant Mage, your two examples prove nothing. The first is a simple statement of fact that the US and Japan have had a close alliance. I have no idea why you can't understand that. The second is simply someone stumbling over words. I find it interesting that you associate this with stupidity, as I expect you would become more than a little tongue-tied yourself if you had to be versed on a huge array of topics and then present your comments to the national media on the spur of the moment.