Froomkin on the Bush Bubble
The lead section of Dan Froomkin’s Washington Post column from yesterday is all about George Bush’s dysfunctional management style, its roots in his twisted personal psychology, and the media’s emerging willlingness to talk about it. So to me it was basically like catnip to a cat. Anyway: Now they tell us.
“Bush’s bubble has grown more hermetic in the second term, they say, with fewer people willing or able to bring him bad news — or tell him when he’s wrong. Bush has never been adroit about this. A youngish aide who is a Bush favorite described the perils of correcting the boss. ‘The first time I told him he was wrong, he started yelling at me,’ the aide recalled about a session during the first term. ‘Then I showed him where he was wrong, and he said, “All right. I understand. Good job.” He patted me on the shoulder. I went and had dry heaves in the bathroom.’ . . .
September 14th, 2005 at 6:46 am
Maybe one should look at it from this perspective, It’s not that GW dislikes or doesn’t care about our dark skinned bretheren. GW does not care about the poor. Race is not the issue.
September 14th, 2005 at 7:58 am
I guessing that makes a world of difference.
Still – GW making that connection shows he isn’t completely daft, just heartless.
September 14th, 2005 at 3:48 pm
I think the problem is he just doesn’t grasp things. He has no understanding of the real world, he’s totally disconnected with reality. That kind of thing happens when a person is constantly surrounded by “yes” people, and throughout their whole life has had things handed to them.
Life was not hard for George Bush. He’s never had to worry about his utility bill being paid, or had to wait for his next pay cheque to buy his daughter that new toy she really wanted. Not ever having to experience the real world, coupled with an inability or unwillingness to comprehend it, makes that guy the most oblivious leader in history.
And plenty of low friends in high places always helps.
September 14th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
Yep, Rise Against, we needed a president who has had to earn an honest living. Maybe someone like John Kerry, poor fella. Or perhaps we could recruit Ted Kennedy for the job.
How far back would we have to go to find your ideal, a president who wasn’t born and reared with the proverbial silver spoon in his mouth? The Abe Lincoln types are few and far between.
September 14th, 2005 at 9:57 pm
This guy had an Abe Lincoln-like beard for a while. Not to mention he was, after all, the people’s choice for president back in 2000:
http://www.algore-08.com
September 15th, 2005 at 3:05 am
Well, coming from a rich family does not guarantee growing up without responsibility. Clearly you have more opportunities, but I think dubya was particularly allowed to fail again and again without bearing any responsibility and in fact was placed in more and more influential places.
September 15th, 2005 at 7:27 am
Teachervet,
If you had read my post carefully, you’d notice that my opinion was that it is Bush’s inexperiencees of hardship along with his inability to comprehend the real world.
There’s no doubt those two leaders you mentioned had it easy, but the main difference between them and Bush is that they seem to understand the plight of the common man, whereas Bush just doesn’t seem to get it.
September 15th, 2005 at 8:11 am
TeacherVet, do you have any historical reference for this, or are you just assuming that every president for the past hundred years or so was born with into some kind of great wealth?
In order to find out how far back we have to search to find a president who didn’t grow up in a wealthy family, let’s turn the way back machine waaaaaaay back to the turn of the century…the turn of the 21st century, that is. Bill Clinton’s father was a travelling salesman whose father died weeks before he was born, and grew up with an abusive stepdad.
Bush Sr’s father was a senator, which is part of his family legacy — those guys grew up pretty well. I don’t know much about Reagan’s past, but I don’t believe that Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter before Reagan were born into wealthy families. Going back a little further, Harry Truman grew up pretty poor and was a farmer and then elected as a local administrative judge until he served as FDR’s VP.
The ideal that all presidents and/or politicans have come from great wealth is bogus.
I don’t believe that anyone’s accomplishments should be dictated or discounted by their family background, however. I just wanted to point out that history tends to disagree with your statement.
September 15th, 2005 at 8:14 am
Oh, TeacherVet, I also want to point out that John Kerry did not grow up with great wealth — that is a common misconception. His immediate family was not wealthy. See this article.
September 15th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
Oops…I suck. That should read:
Bill Clinton’s father was a travelling salesman who died weeks before former president Clinton was born…
September 15th, 2005 at 5:20 pm
Sorry, I forgot that John Kerry only attained wealth from his first wife – the one he had institutionalized when he needed money.
I agree that GWB was probably reared without financial worries, but his wealth, such as it is, was gained through wise investments of time and money. Any who would make unfounded, and false, statements that he doesn’t care about blacks or poor folks is simply surmising – ignorantly.
Most of you wanted Al Gore in 2000. I know him personally, and I work in the Nashville area with many who knew him even better than I, and I assure you that he makes offhand racist comments with great frequency when he thinks he is in “safe” company. He was/is a fraud, but many of the great Bush-haters are easily deceived, but they don’t know him personally.
The great Bill Clinton? A close friend of mine on the faculty at University of Arkansas called me the night Clinton was first elected, offering “good news and bad news.” The good news: “We lost our governor.” That professor is a Democrat who had grown tired of the Clinton shenanigans.
While in the service, I worked closely with both Johnson (D) and Nixon (R), and they were equally detestable. Both were foul-mouthed, abusive, drunken jerks with no regard for the common folks – unless the cameras were rolling.
My point? Every president in my memory made mistakes, but all could be supported for something. GWB is no different in that respect. I don’t like his border policies, NCLB, or his government growth and spending. As Commander-in-Chief, however, I fully support the man in charge of our protection – as I did with Johnson and Nixon.
The selective, unsupported criticism of his personality is purely political. His IQ and collegiate records were topics of constant ridicule in 2004, but both are greater than Kerry’s. Do any of you have firm evidence that he is apathetic toward the poor, or are your comments based on your own politically slanted/biased interpretation of his performance?
He’s a tough CEO, not everybody’s buddy, as I fully expected from his days as owner of the Texas baseball team. He can make a difficult decision when necessary, and he’s able to take a constant barrage of rabbit-punches.
Even his facial features have been ridiculed – typical, meaningless political envy. His frequent “vacations” come under constant scrutiny, but they are always working vacations. In order to win in the future, Democrats must win some votes over from the otherside, but most of those potential change-over voters have tired of the meaningless garbage and do not take it seriously, sensing panic and desperation.
When every facet of the man’s intelligence, personality, and even his looks are constantly, maliciously criticized….as with the story of the boy who cried wolf, we won’t know when the next criticism might actually be “for real.” Every Republican candidate since Eisenhower has been labeled as dumb, stupid, ignorant, etc. – after awhile it loses any substantive meaning, and is not taken seriously by the majority of voters. As evidence, review the voting trends over the last 30 years.
September 16th, 2005 at 7:10 am
TeacherVet, are you responding to me? The only statements that I made were that your assumptions about former president’s family wealth were incorrect. I further went on to say that accomplishments should not be discounted by family background, which seems to agree with your position, while disputing your fabrication of facts.
Despite your labelling of Bush criticism as purely political, you continue to offer similar criticism of his former political opponents, John Kerry and Al Gore. Do your assessments strike you as political at all? Aren’t you guilty of the same thing you accuse the anti-Bush crowd of? Doesn’t that make you pretty much the same as them?
Further, your dismissal of Bush criticism as purely political and comparing it to the boy who cried wolf is also questionable. I don’t have a difficult time separating things like Michael Moore’s conspiracy theories and whining from legitimate criticism of things like Bush’s spending (cut taxes and increase spending) and foreign policies. Why would you think that anyone else would have so much trouble separating real criticism from superficial whining?
September 16th, 2005 at 9:49 pm
In reviewing my own post, I think I was critical of specific issues with both Nixon and GWB, as I was with Johnson, Kerry and Gore. I didn’t include criticism of their looks or facial expressions because that is petty and childish.
I’m glad you’re able to separate MM’s garbage from legitimate criticism, but you don’t speak for the voters in so-called “red” states. For future success, some of those states have to switch allegiance, and those voters have been flooded with stupid criticism that has grown out of hatred, bitterness, frustration, immaturity, etc. The intense hatred has probably solidified many of the 48% anti-Bush voters, but it also solidifies the 51% Bush voters. Strangely, I suppose, we aren’t flattered by insults.
Did anyone watch Nightline last night? After Bush’s speech, a town-hall meeting was held to interview many of those who are being housed in the Astrodome. The questions were all geared toward blame of Bush after Katrina, but virtually every responder was completely supportive of Bush’s efforts, casting all the blame directly on their own mayor. The surprise and frustration of the inviewer was unmistakable, since his audience was comprised almost entirely of inner-city blacks – people he assumed would support his premise. The “blame-Bush for everything” garbage is not working with New Orleans residents, and it’s also back-firing with the general public, although it won’t show up in most polls.
I love to laugh at polls, apparently often conducted to influence opinions. They are obviously manufactured to a great degree since results are false in the all-important Red states. If I had to guess, I would surmise that less than 10% of respondents in most polls are from rural areas of the country. A classic example was the early exit polling last November that incorrectly had Kerry winning in a land-slide – I’ve no doubt those polled were carefully selected, primarily inner-city voters. In my own county, only one precinct was exit-polled – the most heavily, traditionally Democrat precinct. Those exit-poll results gave Kerry more than 80% of the votes, but Bush won the county with almost 75%.
See anything wrong there? And can you guess the motive? Manipulation – but it didn’t work. The voters in the Florida Panhandle and those in the far west actually completed their trips to the voting sites, “rather” than turning back toward home as in 2000 when false results were announced early enough to influence voters.
As a public school teacher, I don’t think I live in a Hollywood-type bubble. I assure you that the hatred is not endearing to most Red-state voters, and that doesn’t bode well for Dems in 2008. Traditionally, the mid-term elections in 2006 should yield good results for the Democrat Party, but don’t bet on it. Today, it’s tough to win elections when roughly 10% of your base has been “disenfranchised” via abortion. The percentage of those “missing voters” continues to grow, and it’s reasonable to assume that most of them would have been Democrat votes.
Apologies for the rambling, but at least it gives everybody a favorite sentence to choose for rebuttal.
September 16th, 2005 at 11:55 pm
Heh. Here’s my rebuttal:
http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/8907/usamap4yr.gif
September 18th, 2005 at 12:34 am
I accept the rebuttal because it reinforces my comments. Some of the “complete morons” must somehow be persuaded to switch over if the Dems are to be successful in future elections. Degrading and insulting them only strengthens their resolve, so I can think of no reason to argue with the ploy.
I’m reminded of a losing football coach whose passing game wasn’t effective, so he increased the passing game. When intelligent people continue to shoot themselves in the foot, it seems to indicate that frustration is turning into sheer panic, resulting in redoubling of the self-inflicted injuries.
September 18th, 2005 at 8:37 am
Well, if redoubling one’s efforts in the same direction in response to evident failure is a sign of frustration turning to panic, what are we to make of the Bush supporters who continue to support him in the wake of his many, many spectacular failures?
September 18th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
The people who continue to support him have heard the cries of “failure, failure, failure” so regularly that we don’t apply credibility to any of it anymore. When realizing that his failures (as characterized by loud, hate-filled voices) include the shape of his ears, his facial expressions, his plain-spoken speech, and even his printing style and his reasons for visiting a bathroom….the criticisms are no longer taken seriously.
Administrators have said that I have an uncanny ability to win students over, getting them to perform as desired, including some who are involved in gang activities (they are often the ones who impede progress for an entire class). I work on them with reasoning and tremendous patience, usually having to win their parent(s) over, preliminarily. I would experience no success if I used degradation, ridicule, and personal criticism.
Democrats want to win back Congress and the White House in upcoming elections. They seem to have a plan: belittle the voters in every way imaginable. Psychiatrists would have a field day analyzing those who are using that approach, since the efforts seem to be fueled by every negative emotion: hatred, resentment, spitefullness, immaturity, frustration, fear, panic, etc. – all the result of consistent failure. Alternative solutions to problems are almost never offered, and that is political suicide.
Yes, many Bush supporters continue to support him in the wake of his many, many spectacular “failures” because they don’t perceive them as evident failures, but only constant criticisms. They seem to exhibit no frustration, certainly no panic, and their supportive efforts are not jeopardizing their party’s chances in future elections, so I fail to see the comparison.
All of the “legitimate” criticisms (those regarding policies and actions) are only legitimized by surmisal of his intentions – reading his mind – and those analyses are not given credibility by “red” voters. Want to ensure continued election failure in the future? Continue on the same path.
September 19th, 2005 at 8:15 am
TeacherVet,
I’m wondering if you believe that the “blue” politicians out there are calling everyone in the red states assholes? Are you hearing politicians making fun og Bush’s ears? Or…is it the pundits who call this stuff out? The latter will always call that stuff out…and nobody (but real assholes) takes pundits seriously. Seriously, can you remember the last time you worried what Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Riley, or even Al Franken thought about you? I can’t, because it never happened — those guys are dicks!
As far as the people who are still supporting Bush today, there are always holdouts who are dillusional in their support. Following the Watergate scandal, Richard Nixon’s approval ratings were somewhere around 31% (yeah, these numbers vary…bear with me). Bush is down to about 43%, which is pretty low for an American president. I’m sure that if Bush announced that he was a Neo Nazi and grew a little Hitler mostache, he would still have a 20-30% approval rating. It doesn’t mean that 20-30% of Americans are neo Nazis. Rather, it means that a certain percentage of us choose to be ignorant and support America out of (perhaps) some unquestioning patriotic spirit, which (in this hypothetical case) borders dangerously on nationalism.
I subscribe to the idea that the 2004 election was decided by the folks who came out to take a stand against homosexuality in their Bush vote. I find it hateful, disturbing, and unamerican…but that’s the way it goes, I suppose.
Yes, there are plenty of people who still support Bush, but his approval rating tends to show that quite a few are beginning to understand the nature and magnititude of Mr. Bush’s failures, both foreign and domestic.
As far as further alienating the folks in the red states, this alienaton is inherent to their being red states. Compared to the Pacific and mid-Atlantic voters, the folks in the middle are different from those on either coast. There are fundamental differences from the way they/we talk, all the way to the core values. This means that we will vote differently. Calling those folks stupid isn’t going to change anything…the same way that their calling people like me amoral won’t change anything. The lack of understanding is bilateral, and will continue. We see them as encroaching on our way of life (especially when it comes to religious issues, such as the pledge of allegiance, abortion, intelligent design, stem cell research, and equal rights for homosexuals), whereas they see us encruaching on their way of life (equal rights for homosexuals, abortion, stem cell research, the pledge of allegiance, and intelligent design). Apparently, neither “side” is content with state law dictating what is right for that particular state (and their unique cultures), so both sides are trying to cram it down the throats of all of us.
Although some of this does seem like a national issue (I don’t particularly approve of a government-manded recgonition of “one nation, under God”, as it is essentially the state sponsoring/mandating monotheism) — others don’t. If a group of moronic assholes want intelligent design taught in their state, and the state courts can’t see past the thin veil over state sponsored creationism, screw ’em. Let them have their way until someone who lives there comes up with an argument that the courts can understand (that is, right up until a federal judge puts a monument of the ten commandments up in his courthouse).
September 19th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
The mean, immature rhetoric is primarily coming from the pundits, but the public displays of hatred and resentment also come from screaming politicians. None of the insanity, whether from pundits or politicians, is viewed by most voters as healthy behavior – and we’ve been so thoroughly saturated with it that it has no meaning.
Do you really feel threatened when kids say “one Nation, under God”? How does that establish monotheism, and under which God? We are constitutional protected in our great variety of worship preferences, rather than being limited.
Creationism is a theory. Evolutionism is a theory. We may choose either as a foundation of our beliefs, and both should be studied in schools.
I completely disagree that the gay issues decided the 2004 election. Democrat policies have failed, and most people are cognizant of that fact.
Abortion is not a religious issue as much as a human issue. It is the issue that is sinking the Democrat Party boat. Progressively greater numbers of missing votes, women who have been psychologically damaged after choosing the procedure, etc.
September 19th, 2005 at 7:17 pm
I feel threatened when kids are forced to say “one nation, under God”, because it is an attempt to indoctriante our kids. If it were all inclusive, it would be “one nation under God, Gods, or no God.” The phrase indicates monotheism because it says under God — there is no s there, which explicitly indicates no plurality, hence monotheism. It doesn’t have to pick any particular God in order to exclude people who don’t believe — who don’t their kids to recgonize any God.
In your next paragraph, you say that creationism is a theory and evolution is a theory. I hope that you say that understanding that in the way you’re using the word theory, it has two completely different meanings. One is a scientific theory, which must undergo intense peer reviewed scrutiny to even be accepted as a theory, and must be completely workable on paper, however not directly observable (in this case, keep the following in mind for reference: General relativelty, Dynamic Theory of Gravity, String Theory, etc) . The other is simply dogma, no more no less and does not have a place inside of the scientific method. Without ant basis in the scientific method (the ideal which science is entirely based on), Creationism and/or ID have no place in a science classroom. In this sense, the word theory is used to mean conjecture. A scientific theory is far more. I would have no problem if ID and/or creationism were taught as part of a greater theology class (as long as it wasn’t the only ideal taught). Teaching creationism/ID in a science classroom demeans what science is. We will be a far stupider nation if we allow the very definition of science to be blurred by politically motivated people.
In fact, I wonder if your contortion of the two meanings is totally politically motivated. Please see the following page for a good definition of what different theories mean, and also think dritically about the ‘types’ section. Perhaps you’ll be able to separate these out better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory.
I think that the gay issue is the issue that what drove the extra socially conservative voters out. IMO (and this is strictly my opinion, and is antecdotal), this was an issue that was important enough to drive social conservatives who may not have otherwise voted to the polls, and in Ohio, could have accounted for the hundred-thousand odd votes that made the election. Was every conservative Republican voting solely against gay rights? No, probably far from it, but I’m guessing that the issue could have driven enough social conservatives out to vote their conscience.
As far as Democratic policies failing, I really don’t see a vote for Bush as a vote against a Democrat. This is one of my biggest problems with Bush, he cut taxes and increased spending. Now, I understand the Reaganomics Laffer curve/Voodoo/Supply Side/Trickle down economics — whatever you want to call it. I know that Bush was really pushing this in his early agenda, and although I don’t know enough to take a stance on either side of that debate, I like lower taxes. I hate paying taxes to a government who pisses those dollars away, and I don’t trust the government, and think that federalism is pretty lame as well. Therein lies the problem. Bush spends like a damn Democrat, and has absolutely no problem growing the government, and extending the fed’s power over states. He’s like a socially conservative Democrat in a Republican’s clothes. From my standpoint, that’s about as bad as it gets! Being back the old Republicans who actaully didn’t believe in big government. So, to get back to my really long point — a vote for Bush isn’t really a vote against Democratic policies. It’s a vote for (IMO) the wrong Democratic policies, and social conservatism.
At this point, the Democratic policies are more contrarian that anything else. It seems that they disagree and throw up red flags for the sake of itself, and don’t choose their battles wisely. They were weak after the 2000 election, and are totally dickless after 2004. With guys like Chuck Schumer and Kennedy speaking out for them, no wonder they can’t win an election. The red states see guys like that and run (congressional or presidential). At least with a moderate like Clinton (before we found out that he liked pussy, was like the rest of us, but had to lie about it), he was an agreeable guy to most of America. Nobody loved voting for the guy, but to the plurality of voters, he made sense at the time. What we need is a moderate president who is willing to make some non-partisan compromises.
As far as abortion goes, it is so clear that it is primarily a religious issue. For some, it is a human issue…but ignoring who the majority of the anti folk are sort of fogs the issue. As far as the issue damaging the Democrats, I disagree again. Our country is pretty much split down the issue, and has been for quite some time. It to me sounds like your hypothesis is driven more by your political posture than anything else. Since it’s one of those super emotionally-driven issues, let’s just keep it superficial for now. I have a feeling that this is the issue that’s going to drive this discussion into a flame war. Back to the Democrat/Republican stuff, I wish that more polticans would drop the partisan thing for a while and push their own agenda on some of these issues.
September 19th, 2005 at 10:59 pm
When I mention the failure of Democrat policies, I’m speaking primarily of socialism and abortion.
I am quite well aware of the definitions, and the repercussions, of socialism and communism. I abhor both. A comparison of the platforms of the Democrat Party with that of the Communist Party reveals startling similarities. The differences are few.
Abortion is killing the Democrat Party, in many ways. We kill 6 million future voters every 4-year voting cycle. Logically, most of the “missing voters” would have been Democrats, and the number increases steadily. Only a few of my reasons to assume it is negatively affecting Democrat candidates:
1. Most abortions are performed in large metropolitan areas – always Democratic strongholds.
2. Logically, most of those who choose abortion are affililated with the party that supports abortion – Democrats.
3. Allowed to live, most would have been reared in Democrat families (see 1 and 2 above).
4. About 20 million abortions from 1973-1985, people who would have been in the 18-31 age block – historically, mostly Democrats.
5. According to Starr Parker’s research, about 35% of all abortions are performed on African-American women – 90% of whom are Democrats.
6. Many women, following abortion, develop serious emotional problems, and many turn from the party that gave them the “opportunity.”
In 2008 the missing voters will number 24 million, then 28 million in 2012, 32 million in 2016, and on and on it goes. Most of them, logically, being Democrats, can one figure out why the Democrat base is shrinking? And, what is the prognosis for electoral success in the future?
Please identify the religious component of my argument.
I corresponded my concerns with most Democrat senators, not identifying my political affiliation, as a citizen concerned about the future of the Democrat Party. Only two responded. (1) Harry Reid corresponded to let me know that he doesn’t correspond with any citizens outside his home state. (2) Nancy Pelosi wrote a brief, terse letter, thanking me for my “concerns about women’s rights” (which I never mentioned), suggesting that I speak to my own senators.
I support women’s rights. They are absolutely equal in family, society, and the workplace. They have the right to suffrage, any job they wish to pursue, equal pay, etc. The right to kill their unborn “on demand,” no. And, don’t get me started on partial-birth abortion or the sale of body parts.
In advance, I ask forgiveness for all the religious and emotionally-driven rhetoric that always seems to be mistakenly applied/assumed. My premise is completely secular. I’m using simple math combined with logical reasoning, without turning to a minister, priest, or rabbi to check my figures.
September 21st, 2005 at 9:02 am
I’m not sure that I agree with your post. As someone who is not particularly fond of the Democratic party’s policies, I can safely say that they’re still quite far away from socialism and/or communism. If you plot the Democrats and Republicans on a political spectrum chart (yeah, I just made that term up), the Democratic policies would fall closer to socialist policies than those of the Republicans. However, the Republicans are closer to neofascism than the Democrats. My point is not that the Republicans are a bunch of neofascists. My point is that just because someone falls closer to one thing than another on the spectrum doesn’t mean that this is their identity. Those who say otherwise tend to listen to too many pundits.
Further, I don’t agree with your math on the abortion thing on any level. Democrats don’t necessarily have democrat kids, and Republicans don’t necessarily have republican kids. Not everybody votes based on social policy either, and the abortion issue isn’t as important to everyone as it is for you — it doesn’t necessarily dictate which voter votes for which party. That’s like saying that becuase marijuana-legalization is very important to me, it must drive every voter’s intention at the polls.
Abortions tend to be performed in urban centers, but it’s only because there is greater population density there — there are simply more doctors per square mile in urban centers. As far as the serious emotional problems you claim that “many” women experience, where is your evidence for this, and can you quantify it in any way? At face value, it seems kind of like a pretty political statement (let’s ban abortion for the sake of women!). I know a number of women who have undergone the procedure. While they largely wonder what could have been, for whatever reason, they never claimed to have any severe emotional problems. Now, this is merely antecdotal, but I recgonize this…again, I’m taking your statements at face value.
By your math, then, there must be some validity in Steven Johnson’s idea that abortion has cut crime and poverty greatly.
It’s funny that you use terms like partial-birth abortion. It’s funny because it used to be called late-term abortion (or Intact Dilation and Extraction (D&X)) by medical professionals. Then folks with a political agenda changed the name. Now, every time I hear someone say it, I know where they’re coming from…political. It’s a pretty big bunch of bullshit, as the anti-abortion crowd would have us believe that doctors performed these things for sport. Most doctors wouldn’t even perform them unless the mother’s life was in jeopardy, which was also
If you’re against abortion, I take it that you’re also against a morning-after pill. Further, I assume that you’re also against the oral contraceptive pill — since (in some cases) the pill does not always prevent ovulation, and the egg may actually be fertilized. In these cases, the pill acts to prevent the embryo from attaching to the uterine wall…which terminates the pregnancy. If you are not against these practices, but are still against abortion, who are you to say that these pharmaceuticals should not be illegal, since others see this as a mother killing their unborn “on demand”. I’m trying to point out the crux of the issue, which is a difference in beliefs. I tend to believe something else altogether. Am I forcing that down anyone’s throat? No. I leave it up to those who are actually faced with the decision. As a penis-bearing person, I also understand that I can never understand the decision that mothers-to-be face, and respect it. I think that they are clearly capable of taking on such a decision, and your moral fiber does not, in any way, outweigh theirs. This is a very basic ideal, and I find it interesting that the right knocks the so-called intellectual elite while playing moral elite. Why not just not have an abortion, and others can weigh the decision on their own, without external laws?
Finally, I never said that the issue was religious for you — but on the national political spectrum, it clearly is dictated by religion.
September 21st, 2005 at 10:02 am
Fine. The DNC, and its loyal followers, should refuse to analyze why the voting trends of the last 30 years have resulted in loss of control of the House, Senate, and House of Representatives, and why the trend is obviously still growing. The trend is happening because voters are morons and because GWB is a hateable man. Obviously, they think he will again be the GOP nominee in 2008, since they are still wasting their time campaigning against him. Yep, the party of intellectualism.
Abortion should be given no attention, since it has no affect on the numbers in the Democrat base. It is a beautiful thing.
I’ll interrupt the sarcasm long enough to say that the partial birth abortion process involves partial birth – hence the name. It is descriptive, not political. Pro-death forces don’t like the term because it is realistically descriptive. The baby is manipulated so that it emerges from the birth canal feet first. With only the head still inside the mother, a long needle is inserted into the baby’s brain to ensure that it is dead. Live birth is still a common problem, known as the “dreaded complication” in the abortion business, in which cases the baby must be killed after birth. The process is necessary only to support the supposedly illegal sale of intact body parts, not to save the life of mothers. Return to sarcasm – Beautiful.
September 21st, 2005 at 9:23 pm
Pro-death forces! Awesome. That’d be a great name for a metal band. There is nothing quite as refreshing as reducing complicated issues to simplistic, mindless sloganeering. I think thats a great term and I’m going to use it to describe anyone advocating captial punishment, military action, or gun ownership or people who don’t wear helmets whilst riding their motorcycles, pretty much anything that could lead to you getting killed or killing someone else easily.
September 21st, 2005 at 10:22 pm
Not that I want to delve into this much further, but as a self respecting member of the pro-death forces, I feel a responsibility to chime in on a couple of things.
I think that I think that you’ve gone off the deep end regarding the only reason for IDX is for the sale of body parts. Where are you pulling that from? Can you offer any evidence of this other than some accusations on a videotape noted across anti-abortion sites?
Maybe the idea of a vast market for intact late term fetuses is worth some consideration. That’ll be my first priority after getting to the bottom of the orgies that Bush, Cheeny, Rumsfeld, and Bin Laden are having.
Also, check out the etymology part of this description of partial birth abortion. The term in and of itself was created to have political connotations, similar to the term it replaced, ‘brain suction abortion’.
Anyway, I suppose that conspiracy theories and leading nomenclature are the norm here. It’s good to bullshit on lies sometimes.
Oh, and did you hear about the new uniforms for the pro-death forces? They’re pretty much like Storm Trooper uniforms — baaaaaad ass! (These aren’t the embryo-driods we’re looking for – move along.)
September 22nd, 2005 at 12:29 am
Ignore the abortion effect on the Democrat party – no problem here.
Obviously, by pro-death I was talking about infanticade, since abortion was the topic. You guys love to call Republicans fascists (sloganeering?), but Hitler endorsed the same principles.
Strangely, Dems would fight for the right to kill the unborn, but not for national defense. Yeah, yeah, I know – we found no WMD.
September 22nd, 2005 at 12:50 am
The term is defined as being political, but only because that minimizes the obvious in your own minds. It is descriptively realistic, and realistically descriptive.
There were two businesses that provided a vast market for intact body parts, but the one in my wife’s hometown area of West Frankfort, Illinois is defunct now, leaving only one. It’s funny to hear Democrats criticize conspiracy theories.
You guys are so thoroughly filled with hatred, you are unable to even look at an opposing argument – what a pity. If you want examples of simplistic, mindless sloganeering, read some of your own posts throughout this site. You are unable to make a point without the repetitious mantras.
September 22nd, 2005 at 6:59 am
Ahahahaha. So the term is political, but since it agrees with your politics, it’s obviously clear and accurate. That reminds me of ‘fair and balanced’.
Even funnier, you don’t seem to understand that I’m not a Democrat. I never was, and with any luck, I never will be. I’m not the guy here spouting the conspiracy theories, I’m just calling people out on them. Remember, it was you who spouted BS about the only reason for partial birth abortions was to harvest body parts, and how it’s never been performed to save a mother’s life. That’s exactly the kind of misinformation that I like to see on lies.com. So, is it a vast market, or just vast in the writings of your Jesus-journals? I mean — remember, you said the “only reason”. In this thread, I’ve been able to call out your misinformation in nearly every post from the start – I’m pretty open to new ideas, but am understandably skeptical of new ideas that are backed with blatant misinformation. All you have to offer is redirection (misdirection) and the sloganeering that you have accused me of (but never actually seen from me…ever).
What’s really funny here is that I think that J.A.Y.S.O.N. and I are two of the few guys here who don’t vote for Democrats.
As far as calling Republicans fascists — I’ve never done this, and I’ve never heard J.A.Y.S.O.N. call Republicans fascists. I used an example showing that the current Republican party was closer to fascism than the Democratic party to show how far off base you were by calling Democrats socialists (and/or communists) — but made the explicit point that they weren’t neofascists. The point was that you were just as wrong as the people who call Republicans fascists were. Can you read what I’ve been writing, or are you intentionally selective so that you can lump me in with the rest of those left-wing suckers? Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean that I share a single mindset with everyone else who thinks that you’re full of shit…but then again, I’m starting to understand that you’re pretty narrow minded, so I can see how you’d make that mistake (over and over and over again). Remember, it’s not you who has a problem — it’s everyone else on the planet who thinks that you have a problem.
Oh — and just an FYI, I was recently reminded about the rules of the pro-death forces:
The first rule of pro-death forces is, you do not talk about pro-death forces.
The second rule of pro-death forces is, you DO NOT talk about pro-death forces.
…so, I’m not sure that I can talk about my membership with pro-death forces any further.
It’s clear to me that in your selective reading of what I’ve written, you’re either choosing to be thick, or really are that ignorant.
September 22nd, 2005 at 7:07 am
On one level, I envy the simplicity and order of the world you live in, TeacherVet. But on another level, I’d rather live in the messier, more-complicated one that I believe actually exists.
September 22nd, 2005 at 11:32 am
Well, I guess I’m pro-death too, by the definition here.
Oh yeah except for the fact that I, like JAYSON, am against unnesessary war, capital puishment, poverty, guns in corner stores!?
I would say that the repbulican party is killing more people by allowing the poverty level in America to rise after steady decline under the previous administration. Maybe thats the plan?
I seen this cool thing on TV the other day. It talked about the election cycle of life. Heres how it went.
A rebublican gets elected. They cut taxes and public services. Over the course of eight years, the deficit rises and people get angry about the lack of governenment services. They vote for a democrat to straighten things out. In order to tackle the deficit and restore services, they raise taxes. The next election approaches, the repbulican candidate accuses the dem of stealing your money and controlling your life and he promises to lower taxes. See start of paragraph and continue…
September 22nd, 2005 at 12:59 pm
Yep, I’m ignorant, and I choose to live in a world of simplicity and order. I read no “Jesus-journals,” but the anti-religious argument is always a handy cop-out. Simplistic, mindless sloganeering?
The people have voted for only one democrat “to straighten things out” in the last 29 years. There seems to be an imbalance to the election cycle, and abortion is the primary cause – and the negative effect is growing steadily. Ignore it. You folks must assume Bush is running again in 2008, still wasting time campaigning against him.
The government hand-outs (programs) are the primary reason for poverty, and are necessary to keep blacks on the plantation.
The “take” from taxes in 2005 will be greater than any year in history. All evidence suggests that the tax cuts of JFK, Reagan, and GWB are effective at increasing revenue.
September 23rd, 2005 at 8:48 am
Yep, just keep ignoring the facts.
September 23rd, 2005 at 8:56 am
Oh, so I guess if a leader isn’t running for re-election, there’s no need to call them out on their failures? Boy, that’s really healthy democracy.