Moving on with life: the Bush saga continues

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by TomB, Nov 3, 2004.

  1. Matt Burke

    Matt Burke Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    3,721
    Likes Received:
    129
    Location:
    Kenmore
    One of the most important things I learned about getting through life from the bible and faith was how to judge people. Never judge anyone by what they say, but by what they do. Bush’s reasons for going into Iraq were nothing but lies. Now, many mothers are lamenting the unnecessary deaths of their sons. Many more will die now, just to find out there was no WMD and to pull some crazy old man out of a hole who had nothing to do with the twin towers. Not to mention circumnavigating laws like ESA by stating that hatchery fish are the same as wild fish. These are just a few of many clues to what lies below the man in sheep’s clothing. As far as a faith based presidential campaign, he just happens to be homophobic and used faith to get more votes. I think the anti-Christ would do the same thing. One thing is for sure, you will have four more years to discover who he really is and by then it will be too late.
     
  2. o mykiss

    o mykiss Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    1,484
    Likes Received:
    393
    Location:
    .
     
  3. Scott Whited

    Scott Whited Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    West Seattle
    i would normally just assume that Peter is being sarcastic when he says that fox is unbiased, but after tuesday it seems that Peter is not alone. i guess religion and politics do go hand in hand. if we keep up the good work maybe we can end up like the middle east.
     
  4. clockwork

    clockwork New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    bothell township
    there is so many things to rant about but one thing that comes to mind and disappoints me about the american people is that we don't seem to mind when a president lies about going invading a country(starting a war that may never end) but when a successful president lies about his personal life, we flame him. WTF?

    are we really paying him to do what he's done? lets look at his foreign policy: sucks. lied to us about the Iraqi threat, botched Afghanistan, war on terror has been compromised in favor of the Iraq war, we have alienated our former allies, further aggravated terrorists and created new ones. pulled out of the kyoto agreement. and why is he so popular? because he made some tough guy speeches when the country was emotional.

    His domestic policy is just as bad. what has he done here? nothing substantial. tax break for the rich? some of us(not me) got a tax refund. but $100 for a family is peanuts and the money could have been better allocated collectively in certain programs. has shown a clear disregard for the future, especially concerning the environment. this guy lives in the now.

    Bottom line IMHO is that the rich and the Hicks(i know this is a wierd alliance) may like him now but he is going to be our children's worst enemy. i dont want our children to die years from now because of what this POS started. as for us: we had it coming.
     
  5. Stephen Rice

    Stephen Rice Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,479
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Wasilla, Alaska
    yeah doesnt that just "Blow" you away! oh wait it's okay to kill thousands but you better not get caught with your pants down. isn't there something wrong with this picture?? I don't know bout anybody else but I think I would rather get caught with my pants down! :rolleyes:
     
  6. ray helaers

    ray helaers Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    .
    Actually, GWB's ideology of a state/business/church alliance, super-patriotism characterized by an intolerance of opposition, xenophopia, and perpetual war are pretty close to an operational definiton of facsism. Thre's more to fascism than genocide.

    And for your information, Hitler was the elected leader of a democratic republic. What do you suppose the majority of Germans were told and believed about the invasions of Poland and France? Do you suppose that many of them believed those actions were regrettable but necessary to protect the national interest? Do you suppose they believed that no country should have veto power over issues of German security? Do you suppose that "shock and awe" are English for Blitzkrieg?

    I am very mindful that half the country doesn't agree with me. I just wish you were too. Do you really believe you "rule" because you have a 1% majority?
     
  7. David Holmes

    David Holmes Formerly known as "capmblade"

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA, USA.
    Home Page:
    Is the mis-spelling of "fascist" and "fascism" some cool new trend that I don't know about? Or perhaps "facsism" is a new word that means whatever you want it to mean? In this context, the mispelling probably signifies only your own emotional turmoil , so one should ignore the ludicrous suggestion that the current administration, re-elected by over 50 million citizens, is equivalent to any real example of a fascist state.

    This is a democracy - that means the winner "rules" for four years. Were you hoping for something else? Are you proposing that the educated elite (ha) should simply choose a leader for the rest of the people?

    Also, I made no statement or endorsement in my observation that the title post was, in effect, an unintended oxymoron. I am a card-carrying Democrat, so HAH.

    Meta-points:

    1. If a candidate cannot mobilize voters to get them elected, then he has no business running the country. That fact is an elegant byproduct of democracy.

    2. One should be reminded that the Democratic party has been on the decline for 50 YEARS. If it weren't for Ross Perot, we would not have won the presidency since Carter. The Party is out of touch with the working class (once their main constituents) and Flyover America. The party will likely continue to decline in the future.

    This was the Democratic Party's best chance to get the White House and they blew it.
     
  8. ray helaers

    ray helaers Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    .
    Actually I would posit that winners of elections in democracies are given a mandate to govern, not rule, particularly not with a 1% majority. Bi-partisanship is not a matter of the minority rolling over; it requires compromize on the part of the majority. And geez, what's your trip with spelling? I got it right on the second try for pity's sake.

    I notice you didn't attempt to answer or even address my statements suggesting unfortunate historical parallels with the current direction of the country. I understand they are provocative and require more thought than making fun of typos.

    As far as your analysis of the decline of the democratic party, while in general you may be correct, your facts are wrong and your case is rather overstated. 50 years ago was 1954. The democrats still had ahead of them pretty close to uninterupted control of both houses of congress until 1994 (with much more convincing majorities than the republicans have mustered since). We'll have to see if the republicans can match that. As far as the white house goes, while it's true that Bill Clinton was never able to win a majority of votes, he won two convincing pluralities, and in 1996 took very close to 50% (1% less than GW's "convincing" win this week), with the threat of impeachment looming. In the last four election cycles, the republican presidential candidate has earned the following percentages of popular vote: 1992 39% (Bush I, the lowest percentage for an incumbent ever); 1996 40% (Dole); 2000 49% (Bush II); 2004 51% (Bush II, while better than Clinton's reelection number, still low historically for a reelection, and Clinton did beat his republican challenger by close to 10 points). I wouldn't call this trend a ringing mandate to "rule," or a harbinger of dynasty.

    I'm not trying to suggest the democratic party isn't in some trouble, but reports of its death are greatly exagerated. I'm sorry if I spelled anything wrong; it would undoubtedly prove you right.
     
  9. Old Man

    Old Man Just an Old Man

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2002
    Messages:
    26,821
    Likes Received:
    5,397
    Location:
    Dillon, Mt
    Well I say there is no use worring about it and life as we know it will go on. This isn't the end of the world or no where close to it. I just try to go with the flow and try to keep out of some of this political junk.

    It seems that no matter what we all attempt to bitch about that the Government will just do as they please as they are the ones in charge. I'm not complaing about anything except that it don't do any good to cry over what is done or however they will attempt to screw us over in the next four years.


    So I guess that this is about the only way to have any fun anymore ptyd .

    Jim bawling:
     
  10. Calvin1

    Calvin1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    51
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Capmblade,

    I agree with your meta-points. I find it discouraging that the Democratic party has foregone its base. The Republicans have returned to their base and added a new one, the religous right.

    I'm loathe to admit it, but I really believe that the Democratic party needs to work on their political machine. There is no equivalent on the Democratic side to the Karl Rove propaganda machine. I find it interesting that Kerry made his greatest strides in this campaign when they finally brought the political stalwarts like James Carville and Joe Lockhart on board. Rather than packing up their tents right now, hopefully they'll keep these mechanisms in place and begin grooming a candidate for the next election. I believe it has been demonstrated by both parties that the lifetime achievement award candidate is rarely successful. What is need is a candidate who will energize the electorate.

    Lifetime Achievement Award Candidates:

    1. John Kerry
    2. Bob Dole
    3. Dick Gephardt (though never nominated)
    4. Gerald Ford

    Just my ramblings.

    Calvin
     
  11. David Holmes

    David Holmes Formerly known as "capmblade"

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA, USA.
    Home Page:
    This is equivalent to saying "well my party lost, but the winners should still enact my party's agenda!" Why? What for? To what purpose? There are plenty of checks and balances in the system as it is (the 60 votes required by the Senate) for example. The democrats lost. Bush has even less reason to moderate his already extreme agenda than he did in 2000.

    I didn't go there on purpose. I couldn't write what I really wanted to say without it seeming heavy-handed.

    The well-respected Economist magazine endorse Kerry for president. Here is their post-mortem analysis of the Democratic party.

    http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3353402

    If anything, they are being optimistic of its future -- IMO in another 10 years there will be only handful of Democratic senators, congressmen and governors.

    This is exactly why the D party is in trouble -- it still thinks it is in power. It still thinks it is the People's Party and it doesn't see that its days are numbered. It is about to become the ultimate tool: an irrelevant foil for the Republicans to rally their troops against.
     
  12. Bob Triggs

    Bob Triggs Stop Killing Wild Steelhead!

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    4,700
    Likes Received:
    1,687
    Location:
    Olympic Peninsula
    Home Page:
    capmblade:

    What do you think America will be like with a one party system if the two party system is this screwed up? My impression is that both the Democrats and Republicans are so fixated on their own respective view of things, and their own agendas, that in their minds a single party America would be some kind of heaven,( as long as it was their own party that remained.)

    I think we need an overhaul of the whole damned deal. Any party's "members" should be deeply disturbed by the split within America today, as evidenced buy a record turn out of voters and such a narrowly decided result. The way you talk about victory and George Bush reminds me of coyotes doing a death dance over a kill.
     
  13. Ken Hunter

    Ken Hunter Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Shoreline, Wa, USA.
    I'll ask the question again. What are you going to do now?

    I'm sure everything said here is true but you still need to find a way to move forward. Just wait till next time and we'll get them then means nothing gets done.

    It seems as though we should spend more time working on good things for fishing and less time with the nasty part of politics. A good way to get people off topic politically is to campain to the extreems and hope to split the middle in your favor. This really does get people to stop thinking and start calling each other names. Again nothing gets done.

    I'm not sure what to do myself but forming non political groups is one way to take party politics out of the equation. I know a lot of people on both sides of any nasty issue end up saying a lot of bad things, but two wrongs don't make a right and again nothing gets done.

    Ken
     
  14. ray helaers

    ray helaers Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 1969
    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    .
    Well, I didn't say that anybody should do anything. I said that bi-partisanship requires compromize on the part of the majority. That's not the "equivalent" of anything, it's just english. They can do whatever they want (and I'm sure they will), but if they're unwilling to compromise then they're not bi-partisan. Why should they? To what purpose? I don't know, patriotism, the good of the nation, the recognition that they should govern for the whole country, including a 49% minority, not just the people that voted for them? (Like the Democrats tended to do, and the republicans used to do, by the way; witness Nixon's EPA, Carter's deregulation, and Clinton's welfare reform.) But whatever, I just like to listen to myself; I'm as sure as you are that you're 100% right.

    And I did not say or imply that the Democrats still rule (one of the simplifying advantages of always being right about everything is that you don't have to bother actually listening to or reading what anyone else has to say.) I said they're not dead yet. Yes they're down, but not out, and nothing in recent trends should lead anybvody to believe otherwise. All the well respected journals said the republicans were dying in 96 when Dole got 40% (and I didn't believe them then either).

    And give me a break with The Economist! Yeah, that's an objective source. The Daily Worker promises the brotherhood of man, right around the corner. I'm sure the Wall Street Journal would like to believe they don't have to worry about the democrats anymore either, and they're well respected too!

    But accept my white flag. You're way too smart for me.
     
  15. David Holmes

    David Holmes Formerly known as "capmblade"

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA, USA.
    Home Page:
    Ha ha!. That's clever.

    2008: Hillary vs Jeb. Can you see it?