It's good to be the King!

ETA123

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
190
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
236
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
big dirigible said:
This has happened maybe three times before in American history - a President who consistently outmaneuvers everybody. (Any of you Mensa types able to name those three?) We can thank our lucky stars that he isn't smarter than he is, because there's nobody in Washington (or on this board, for that matter) who's sharp enough to even slow him down.

LOL, you actually think Bush has ANYTHING to do with that. You might want to take a look at Karl Rove, without Rove, Bush would still be bankrupting businesses in Texas (like he did every single one he was involved in, other than that baseball endeavor where he traded Sammy Sosa, sheer genius there).
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
big dirigible said:
This notion is most unfortunate, and perhaps one reason why Bush manages to outmaneuver his opponents every fucking time

He outmaneuvered his opponents on his Social Security piratization proposal? He won the Harriet Miers nomination? He captured Bin Laden at Tora Bora? He crushed the insurgents in their "last throes" in Iraq? He avoided any blame for the Katrina snafu?
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
SpeedoGuy said:
He outmaneuvered his opponents on his Social Security piratization proposal? He won the Harriet Miers nomination? He captured Bin Laden at Tora Bora? He crushed the insurgents in their "last throes" in Iraq? He avoided any blame for the Katrina snafu?
Oh, you poor confused man. Do you actually think he gives a shit about social security? (Uh, no, he's got other sources, trust me...) Harriet Miers? Nah, he had a whole long list, he knew she wouldn't make it, she was a pawn... Bin Laden? Still working with/for the Bush dynasty. Iraq? It makes a good central base, doesn't it, no need to pull out just yet...? Katrina? What the fuck man, all those deviants and colored folks, no big deal, everyone will forget about 'em in a couple of weeks anyway, once I pull something else outa my bag of tricks...

What is important? Why, stacking the supreme court, dividing the country on social issues, pumping up Haliburton net worth, making his political/business buds happy. Now, can we say "Mission Accomplished?"
***SG, you know I love ya, guy!***
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,784
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
big dirigible said:
Reported by whom? You doubtless recall Sailor's analysis of test scores and military aptitude scores of Bush vs. Kerry during the last election.

This notion is most unfortunate, and perhaps one reason why Bush manages to outmaneuver his opponents every fucking time while they do nothing more productive than pat themselves on the back about how much smarter they are than dumb ol' George. This is part of his strength - he doesn't care if anyone thinks he's smart or not, just so long as they just stand around and grouse while he ties them up in knots. Doesn't sound all that dumb to me.

This has happened maybe three times before in American history - a President who consistently outmaneuvers everybody. (Any of you Mensa types able to name those three?) We can thank our lucky stars that he isn't smarter than he is, because there's nobody in Washington (or on this board, for that matter) who's sharp enough to even slow him down.

Try not to sound so disappointed by it, will you.

This is not so much a testimony to his ability as a statesman as perhaps a testimony to the gullibility of a surprisingly large number of allegedly informed and intelligent individuals.

It's almost as if certain people enjoy being duped and made an ass of.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
ETA123 said:
Of course, his kingship was dealt a stinging blow by todays SC decision.
Perhaps, ETA. But in my disillusionment and cynicism of our three-branch (hmm, maybe now I should call it a wreath, instead, for several reasons...) it would surprise me but little if this turned out to be another diversionary tactic. I can hope that the SC is actually trying to pull in the reins just a bit... but my "spidey-sense" is telling me that it's only to focus our attention on a non-issue (more in a moment) so that they can quietly drag something even worse out of their pandora's box of tricks.

About the non-issue comment: of course abuse of presidential power is an issue. The problem is that, even when he is called on it, what is the end result? Will any action be taken? I doubt it.

The whole debate about Geneva Convention makes my skin crawl. The Supreme Court seems to pick and choose when they issue opinions. Why has it taken years for them to even address the issue at Guantanamo? From the beginning, the White House and DoD position on the detainees at G'mo has been "the Geneva Convention does not apply." What the fuck? How do they figure? The only thing I've seen so far that is used as an excuse for saying that is, that the detainees have been designated "enemy combatants." What the hell does that mean in the first place, who is entitled to make that determination, and most importantly, is that designation simply used to run an endgame around international laws and treaties?

Post Script: when I refer to the "wreath" of the branches of government, I mean that the so-called seperation of power and the system of checks and balances has become so incestuous and icky, because of the rampant nepotism, that rather than checking and balancing, the three branches have started excusing, and covering for, the gross abuses of each branch. So instead of three distinct branches, you have one kinda dirty circle. And also, wreaths are used at funerals, a little monument to the direction our "democracy" is headed.
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Dr Rock said:
you're also assuming that bush is a real political entity with any genuine convictions or agenda of his own :rolleyes:


See, this is the point. I don't believe for a second bush's iq is over 100, but it doesn't have to be. HALF of the country has an iq of 100 OR LESS, so it's really not very fucking hard to deceive HALF the people at any given time. Oh, the few who can will go on and on about philosophical issues and principles and plattitudes on both sides, but the Karl Roves of the world will always win because they KNOW how stupid most americans are.

http://www.informatics-review.com/FAQ/reading.html

bush connects with them because he is stupid and likes to fish. He's not threatening to their egos, he makes them feel that "One day I could be President!" Unlike Clinton, his sex life is never discussed (thank gawd) and he's not very attractive.

The "genius in hiding" profile that big dirigible paints is unlikely, or why would he have struggled to get Cs in college and bankrupted every business he ran prior to his presidency?

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=2636

And ain't it "cute" how his then reported iq of 91 magically got reported as 126 right before the debates? Haha, anyone who knows anything about iq would know how unlikely that would be.

IQ doesn't mean "smart" or business savvy. While I would suggest that his life stands in contrast to the idea that he has either, I would also suggest that he has been "smart" enough to surround himself with the right kind of people to accomplish the goals he wants. Spin doctoring is far more important than reality, as it becomes reality for most people if it's repeated enough.

Sure it was okay for bush to toot up, not do his homework, drink himself stupid, bankrupt a bunch of oil companies (it must be HARD WORK finding oil in Texas, right?) and still go on to be the president. Why not? He can afford to cover his tracks by shredding every document he could find about his past, pay the right people to quell stories of his previously well known stupidity and present a well-spun story of a "working man". Ha! He's never done an honest day's work in his life, and as a figurehead he's wholly useless. This is supposed to be a role model for our kids? Not mine! I sure as FUCK wouldn't pay for an education for someone who could only manage "gentleman's Cs" when they didn't even have to have a job!

The thing is about being a drunk and cokehead is that you don't remember things like you should, I ought to know (alcoholic here). He left a trail like a slug, and occasionally, despite his best efforts, some of it gets out anyway. I'd almost feel sorry for the fucker if he wasn't such an ambitious defiler of the constitution.
 

Ethyl

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Posts
5,194
Media
19
Likes
1,714
Points
333
Location
Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
madame_zora bush connects with them because he is stupid and likes to fish. He's not threatening to their egos said:
Think that was a factor in the Republicans' choice to back him? No need to sweat bullets when surrounding him with female interns?
The "genius in hiding" profile that big dirigible paints is unlikely, or why would he have struggled to get Cs in college and bankrupted every business he ran prior to his presidency?

Two words: Forrest Gump

IQ doesn't mean "smart" or business savvy. While I would suggest that his life stands in contrast to the idea that he has either, I would also suggest that he has been "smart" enough to surround himself with the right kind of people to accomplish the goals he wants. Spin doctoring is far more important than reality, as it becomes reality for most people if it's repeated enough.

Funny, I just said these very words to my father on the phone the other night. Dumbasses appear much smarter when surrounded with more intelligent folk if they repeat what they're told and say nothing else.

Sure it was okay for bush to toot up, not do his homework, drink himself stupid, bankrupt a bunch of oil companies (it must be HARD WORK finding oil in Texas, right?) and still go on to be the president. Why not? He can afford to cover his tracks by shredding every document he could find about his past, pay the right people to quell stories of his previously well known stupidity and present a well-spun story of a "working man". Ha! He's never done an honest day's work in his life, and as a figurehead he's wholly useless. This is supposed to be a role model for our kids? Not mine! I sure as FUCK wouldn't pay for an education for someone who could only manage "gentleman's Cs" when they didn't even have to have a job!

Think about all the working-class young adults who struggle to pay their way through college (often not one of their choice much less Yale) AND can boast of 4.0 GPA's. Someone with his "pedigree" will never understand that scenario.

The thing is about being a drunk and cokehead is that you don't remember things like you should, I ought to know (alcoholic here). He left a trail like a slug, and occasionally, despite his best efforts, some of it gets out anyway. I'd almost feel sorry for the fucker if he wasn't such an ambitious defiler of the constitution

Only 17 more months to go, MZ. Hopefully the damage won't increase dramatically before election time.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
DC_DEEP said:
Why has it taken years for them to even address the issue at Guantanamo? From the beginning, the White House and DoD position on the detainees at G'mo has been "the Geneva Convention does not apply." What the fuck? How do they figure?

That's what bothers me as well. And even in the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, why did it take years for some judgement to be rendered on his case. What happend to the "speedy trial" tradition?

DC_DEEP said:
...who is entitled to make that determination, and most importantly, is that designation simply used to run an endgame around international laws and treaties?

If Abu Gonzalez says the president is not bound to obey whatever laws and treaties he dislikes, it must be so. The president trusts Gonzalez's judgement and so should you. :cool:

quote]
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
SG, I know you are straight... and I think I have mentioned this before... but damn, you are pushing ALL my buttons. It must stop, else I will be forced to whisk you away to some tropical island and turn you to the dark side!

Oh, by the way, yes, it is good to be the king. Did you know that Inspectors General of federal agencies are presidential appointees? At least, all the ones I know of, are. Now that I think of it, aren't most of the agency directors appointed?

I didn't really know that much about they system until I moved to this area, back in early 2002. Now, knowing enough insiders to get it, It is just beyond belief. Alright, let's take, for instance, the EPA. Responsible for protecting our environment... a watchdog, right? It is one of the agencies required to present a "semi-annual report to the Congress", as are most of the fed agencies. With at least the last three reports (which basically are designed to tell congress what kind of investment their funding was... did they do their jobs? how well? how do we know? what did they find? what are their recommendations?) the director (remember, presidential appointee) was directed to send an advance report to the white house, before sending it to the congress. Changes were ordered, by the white house, so that the report did not make the administration look so bad.

Do you remember when it hit the news earlier this year, that the EPA's report was published, and the news was better than expected? Well, it was, but only after the white house RE-WROTE it to make it less grim. Some of the guys in various agency IG offices started to complain, but were quickly silenced. It is, indeed, good to be the king. I wish I had editorial control over my tax return, like the white house does on 'semi-annual reports to the congress."
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
dong20 said:
But aren't most of those appointments senate confirmable? Though with a Republican senate what real difference that would make I can't imagine.

You are right, dong. Most appointees need to be confirmed by the Senate although its almost always a rubber stamp process at the level of agency heads such as EPA.


DC_DEEP said:
Do you remember when it hit the news earlier this year, that the EPA's report was published, and the news was better than expected? Well, it was, but only after the white house RE-WROTE it to make it less grim. Some of the guys in various agency IG offices started to complain, but were quickly silenced

I once was part of an agency's internal investigation into an accident that cost a lot of money and nearly cost lives as well. As I suspected, the investigation found errors on the part of the agency: poor employee training, inadequate preparation for emergencies, managerial nepotism and cronyism, and a cover-up. I wrote the section that pointed out these flaws.

When the final report was published, I was shocked to find my damning sections had been almost completely re-written by higher-ups who turned the report into an opportunity to award a medal of excellence to the unit involved. It was the last time I was ever asked to participate in an investigation although I was one of the most senior practioners in my discipline. It was for me, as they say, a learning experience!
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
SG, that really sucks. When you put your time and effort into something only to have it's merits removed or completely revoked is a disgrace. I wonder how many people out there in televisionland understand how little of what they read has anything at all to do with the truth?
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
madame_zora said:
SG, that really sucks. When you put your time and effort into something only to have it's merits removed or completely revoked is a disgrace. I wonder how many people out there in televisionland understand how little of what they read has anything at all to do with the truth?
SG, thank you for confirming, first-hand, that I was not simply making alarmist conspiracy-theory assumptions: these agency reports to the Congress ARE edited.

Zora, you understood part of it, but if I read your post correctly, you missed the IMPORTANT point. Yes, it is frustrating to have your hard work discarded because it is "inconvenient." That important point, though, is that this "editing" affects all of us Americans, profoundly. Uh, this is EPA reports, for-crying-fuckin-out-loud! "Uh, Mr. President, uh, should we have the EPA revise those mercury level numbers, so they don't look quite so bad?" "You're right, let's drop pages 14 - 18, and strike that paragraph about salmon warnings...."

Now, when the NRC reports are "tidied up", what changes do you think are made? How about the GAO? Or the Department of Labor statistics? FEMA reports? DoD? If the White House retains editorial control of the reports from all important federal agencies, what kind of a chance do we stand? And now, the administration (and, of course, their little fuck-buddies in the AG's office and the Supreme Farce) have decided that whistle-blower protection laws don't necessarily all always apply. If ya don't believe me, look 'em up!
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
What drives me the most crazy about Bush is that our current crop of Canadian "leaders" are doing their best to emulate him - they've basically drawn up their political and public/media relations blueprints from the last 6 years of Bush.

In many ways, Canadian voters have an even stronger herd instinct than American ones. So this is understandably worrisome - even if Canadian voters have less potential to do worldwide damage through their negligence or poor choices.

I like these threads, even though I don't contribute to them often. It's good to see people actually debating these issues, rather simply toeing the 'patriotism' line, or allowing themselves to be shouted down by the fearmongers.

The fact that so many people are willing to grant near-absolute power to the political executive in the face of a 'crisis' shows (as has been said) a frightening lack of understanding of how constitutions work, and if I may say so, a too-naive faith that the current crop of 'leaders' have anything but their own interests at heart. It also shows that nobody studies history much anymore (find the common thread in: the Maine, Pearl Harbour, Gulf of Tonkin incident, 9/11).
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
DC, I hope you know I didn't "miss" that point, I just didn't respond to it. I felt I'd responded enough about how people don't realise that what they read is seldom true for that point to have been made, so I was showing some understanding to a friend, that's all. SG had put in some real effort to make a difference, like so many of us do, only to have it thwarted, and that sucks. I had just gotten another letter from a representative thanking me for my opinion on the fcc ruling, then explaining why he's voting for it anyway. I get tired of writing letters that get me nowhere too. The system is fucked and we are in serious trouble. Hey- at least the Ohioans don't mind sending turn down letters!

Rob, you made several good points, but I'm not sure the Canadians are more herd creatures than the americans- not anymore. Honestly, I think I only post here to give myself the illusion that we can make a difference, reality says not so. I also appreciate open debate, I think it's at least a healthy mental exercise and I learn far more about what's going on in the world from the people here who challenge me to read and become informed than any other group of friends I have, so that's a very good thing.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
madame_zora said:
DC, I hope you know I didn't "miss" that point, I just didn't respond to it. I felt I'd responded enough about how people don't realise that what they read is seldom true for that point to have been made, so I was showing some understanding to a friend, that's all.
I did know that, luv... just making sure that other readers didn't miss the point. We've chatted enough for me to know you better than that.
SG had put in some real effort to make a difference, like so many of us do, only to have it thwarted, and that sucks. I had just gotten another letter from a representative thanking me for my opinion on the fcc ruling, then explaining why he's voting for it anyway. I get tired of writing letters that get me nowhere too.
I know you remember a couple of phone conversations back, but we discussed that, too. Writing the first letter is the chore, getting the response is the downer... but that's when the fun begins. I most always write back, point out which of my questions he refused to answer, and really start in on the logic. In the second letter, I also ask "how many pro, and how many con, letters, total, did you receive from constituents on this subject?" I make a photocopy of the second letter, and send it. When I get the second response, I photocopy that one, and send the copies of both my letter and the response to the editor of the Washington Post. Keep up the good work. It ain't easy, but kings can be deposed.
 

Dr Rock

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Posts
3,577
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
258
Location
who lives in the east 'neath the willow tree? Sex
Sexuality
Unsure
rob_just_rob said:
The fact that so many people are willing to grant near-absolute power to the political executive in the face of a 'crisis' shows (as has been said) a frightening lack of understanding of how constitutions work, and if I may say so, a too-naive faith that the current crop of 'leaders' have anything but their own interests at heart.
more than that, it's just simple abdication of responsibility. most people these days spend most of their time avoiding any responsibility for their OWN lives, nevermind the societies they live in. politicians like reagan, thatcher, bush and blair have based their entire careers on the willingness of the majority of the population to have responsibilities, and the need to think seriously about anything, removed as far away from themselves as possible - and on the consequent dismissal of responsibility from authority. when you have all the power and no need to employ it responsibly, you can do nifty shit like repealing civil rights in the name of security, and invading other countries to steal their oil.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
DC_DEEP said:
SG, thank you for confirming, first-hand, that I was not simply making alarmist conspiracy-theory assumptions: these agency reports to the Congress ARE edited.

Like I said, I was shocked and dismayed at what happened. I just couldn't believe my superiors were so craven as to alter the wording and intent of my report without even informing me. Further, to prevent my talking to the press about it, I was slapped with a pre-emptive gag order.

Until that time I'd been something of a "rising star" in that organization but that event marked the beginning of a decade long disillusionment with my employer. During that time I saw additional episodes that only served to deepen my suspicion of the higher ups' ethics. I eventually departed for greener pastures elsewhere.