Man criticizes Bush

Neon · Post by **Neon** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:14 am

http://www.buzznet.com/video/recent/play/9039/

At risk of starting another silly political debate, I had to share...

GaijinPunch · Post by **GaijinPunch** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:12 pm

I'll save my comments to need feed the flames. I will say that Dubya (and most politicians these days) seem to hold their cool pretty well. I liked that one Fox News clip or something where you hear someone in the background of a Cheney interview say, "Fuck you, Mr. Cheney". He just kind of chuckled. Slick Willy was the best though. He never got pissed off in public until like 2 years ago.

professor ganson · Post by **professor ganson** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 2:11 pm

What's funny about this in part is that it's news at all. What? Someone is actually allowed to criticize Bush openly and to his face? That's remarkable! He's only the most unpopular president in decades.

The guy's criticism really hits home too. Libertarians nearly always vote Republican, in my experience. But which party is most concerned to defend your personal liberties? The present administration is a bunch of christian conservatives; they are NOT libertarians. Libertarians need to take a serious look at which party best reflects their values/interests.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:20 pm

GaijinPunch wrote:I'll save my comments to need feed the flames. I will say that Dubya (and most politicians these days) seem to hold their cool pretty well. I liked that one Fox News clip or something where you hear someone in the background of a Cheney interview say, "Fuck you, Mr. Cheney". He just kind of chuckled. Slick Willy was the best though. He never got pissed off in public until like 2 years ago.

I think the difference here, if I may be so bold, is that these current guys think they're above the world and no one has any worthwhile opposing viewpoint while Clinton was just charismatic and a good public speaker. That is more just my impression than a political point of view. Bush is obviously not a good speaker. I didn't see this clip, but I heard he was stammering a lot (i.e. more than usual). True?

it290 · Post by **it290** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:25 pm

No, he handled it in his usual manner... making a joke of the matter. At least he let the guy finish, but I've always felt that Bush was one of the worst doublespeakers around. Not as bad as his press secretary, though.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 3:29 pm

What a waste. This guy had the opportunity to really nail Bush with something, and he wasted it on a glorified "you're a big ol' meanie" to which Bush could easily trot out his prepared schtick. There were so many points brought up, each with such minimal elaboration, that it was ridiculous to expect a reply to all or most of them. This allowed Bush to very easily cherry-pick whichever would be easiest to counter, and big surprise, that's exactly what happened.

professor ganson wrote:What's funny about this in part is that it's news at all. What? Someone is actually allowed to criticize Bush openly and to his face? That's remarkable! He's only the most unpopular president in decades.

Bush almost never speaks to a crowd that doesn't 100% support him these days. Thus, you don't hear much oppsition to him at these kind of things. That's why a mediocre little aimless rant actually got some media attention.

Randorama · Post by **Randorama** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:10 pm

A small victory for Bush jr., a big victor for Rove the almighty *does coded gestures to the Echelon tranmitter above his room in sign of loyalty to Geldra*

Blade · Post by **Blade** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 4:31 pm

Randorama wrote:A small victory for Bush jr., a big victor for Rove the almighty *does coded gestures to the Echelon tranmitter above his room in sign of loyalty to Geldra*

.....

Say what?

My take on it: When people bring out their complaints, it seems like they bring them out in full force instead of discussing one topic at a time like they should do. Public forums for these things need to produce closure and results, that's the whole point. Instead of trying to bombard the president with stuff you read about on the internet that bothered you, try talking about an individual specific problem that affected you directly. Don't give him fuel for jokes and ridicule.

I swear anyone who dares get on the floor with a Politician should have at least joined the Debate Team in high school...otherwise you won't get anywhere. They talk circles around you.

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:25 pm

Yeah, this little event has the liberals cheering and the conservatives bitching and nothing was actually said. Argh.

captain ahar · Post by **captain ahar** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:37 pm

sethsez wrote:Yeah, this little event has the liberals cheering and the conservatives bitching and nothing was actually said. Argh.

so everything's back to normal?

Pixel_Outlaw · Post by **Pixel_Outlaw** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:37 pm

Well, I'm a member of the GOP with that being said public speaking isn't one of President Bushes' strong points, although he has improved since he took office.

Politics can strain friendships, just be careful and and respectful in what you say.

Randorama · Post by **Randorama** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:45 pm

captain ahar wrote:
sethsez wrote:Yeah, this little event has the liberals cheering and the conservatives bitching and nothing was actually said. Argh.
so everything's back to normal?

Yeah, film at 11, and don't forget to post your scores in the high score section!

magnum opus · Post by **magnum opus** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:50 pm

Pixel_Outlaw wrote: just be careful and and respectful in what you say.

no.

thats what leads to people saying "well lets see what he has to say about why he authorized illegal wiretaps"
instead of the correct response: "THATS FUCKING ILLEGAL, WHY DOESN'T ANY ONE SEEM TO CARE!?"

professor ganson · Post by **professor ganson** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:55 pm

sethsez wrote: nothing was actually said. Argh.

See, this is where I disagree. The guy's point is a good one. Republicans, when they are at their best, actually have a point. There is a point to having small government. When the government has fewer powers to infringe on our private lives-- whether because of constitutional protections or because the government has less economic sway (thanks to fewer tax dollars)-- there is a clear good achieved: liberty. Of course, the less the govt. can hurt us, by the same token the less it can help. But let's grant the goodness of liberty-- no liberal should deny it.

This guy's point is that the present administration seems intent on taking away certain liberties-- e.g. with respect to surveillance and reproduction. Not to mention these huge budgets, which give the govt. more economic power than we might want it to have. In other words, this guy was speaking to points that Republicans themselves should appreciate! Isn't the whole point of small government to promote liberty? So why are you guys so fixated on taking liberties away?

sethsez · Post by **sethsez** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:47 pm

The point is that he meandered so much and brought up so many little issues that he failed to ask a single, coherent question that could pin Bush down. He said a lot of words and covered a lot of ground, but at the end of th day none of it meant anything because he didn't ask a question that could get a meaningful answer.

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:51 pm

Randorama wrote:A small victory for Bush jr., a big victor for Rove the almighty *does coded gestures to the Echelon tranmitter above his room in sign of loyalty to Geldra*

holy crap, a Rolling Thunder reference

What scares me about Bush is that he's totally committed to what he's doing. I know he's a sincere guy (and actually more independent from Cheney than people think), but it just amazes me that it never clicked with his administration that you don't spend all your time mouthing off about stuff. We pissed off Iran's voters by criticizing their election, and people went out in droves and voted for the wrong guy. 'course he would've gotten in anyway.

It's the Bush Doctrine: Be naiive and spend lots of money breaking and fixing. What's interesting is that Rice is actually the one that holds back Cheney and Rumsfeld. I think there's positives to what's happened in Iraq, but overall, as Willy said, it's a net negative. We should've cooled our heels before running over there, though.

It'll be interesting to see years from now what sort of political games are being played right now. Think a new revision of Chris Matthew's Hardball is due out sometime.

On the subject of being insulting: Hey, the guy who asked Antonio Scalia if he sodomized his wife didn't end up making any differences, besides getting ostracized by his professors. Damn shame, as he had a great point. Our Administration and their lackeys are really ruled by emotion (money as well, perhaps; I'm not quite sure what to make of Haliburton yet...blame Cheney?)

Neon · Post by **Neon** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:54 pm

sethsez wrote:The point is that he meandered so much and brought up so many little issues that he failed to ask a single, coherent question that could pin Bush down. He said a lot of words and covered a lot of ground, but at the end of th day none of it meant anything because he didn't ask a question that could get a meaningful answer.

Agreed, if his point was as Ganson said he should have summed it up somehow.

Ganelon · Post by **Ganelon** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:56 pm

Meh, what could that guy have done? Bush's fans wouldn't care one way or another and his opponents would be thrilled as always. It's a lose-lose situation there unless that guy was an oratorial genius.

Our founding fathers ought to beat us over the head for not maintaining the liberties that they desperately fought for. We're like frogs in a warming pot...

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 7:46 pm

Ganelon wrote:Our founding fathers ought to beat us over the head for not maintaining the liberties that they desperately fought for. We're like frogs in a warming pot...

I actually think that they were partially motivated by thoughts of becoming the powers that be in this country - heck, Britain was in the process of repealing certain acts (or they weren't really such a big issue to begin with - argh, I've forgotten, and the publich schooling didn't help). Thank goodness for Washington, who turned down the crown. It's really all thanks to him that we're a democracy.

Regardless, they should...

it290 · Post by **it290** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:04 pm

What scares me about Bush is that he's totally committed to what he's doing. I know he's a sincere guy (and actually more independent from Cheney than people think), but it just amazes me that it never clicked with his administration that you don't spend all your time mouthing off about stuff. We pissed off Iran's voters by criticizing their election, and people went out in droves and voted for the wrong guy. 'course he would've gotten in anyway.

Correction: he gives the appearance of being sincere.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:35 pm

professor ganson wrote:
The guy's criticism really hits home too. Libertarians nearly always vote Republican, in my experience.

Most libertarians vote Libertarian (unless you mean civil libertarians... in which case they'd probably choose the Democrats). I think pretty much every ideological libertarian thinks Bush is a scumfuck big government Republicrat. Republicans are not for small government. They haven't been for a long time and I don't think there's a libertarian worth his salt that would vote for the Republicans thinking they'll actually shrink the size of the government. Neither party reflects libertarian values and I think most realize this.

jp · Post by jp » Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:18 pm

Acid King wrote:
professor ganson wrote:
The guy's criticism really hits home too. Libertarians nearly always vote Republican, in my experience.
Most libertarians vote Libertarian (unless you mean civil libertarians... in which case they'd probably choose the Democrats). I think pretty much every ideological libertarian thinks Bush is a scumfuck big government Republicrat. Republicans are not for small government. They haven't been for a long time and I don't think there's a libertarian worth his salt that would vote for the Republicans thinking they'll actually shrink the size of the government. Neither party reflects libertarian values and I think most realize this.

Most libertarians that I know voted Republican because they felt it was pointless to vote for their own party (and its my understanding that those guys NEVER have a decent candidate up anyways).

Its a two party system in most people's minds these days. And thats a dangerous and painful mentality to have. The Democrats have an end but no means to reach it and the Republicans have means but no end goal for their actions.

Granted, I maintain hope Senator McCain can run for president in '08. I think he's just what this country needs to get back on track.

Ganelon · Post by **Ganelon** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:48 pm

I don't. McCain's recent political maneuvering has left me very disturbed. I always thought he was more than meets the eye and his kissing up to the hardline right-wing as of late only confirms his wishy-washy nature.

jp · Post by jp » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:06 pm

Ganelon wrote:I don't. McCain's recent political maneuvering has left me very disturbed. I always thought he was more than meets the eye and his kissing up to the hardline right-wing as of late only confirms his wishy-washy nature.

I think he just realized what his only chance of getting a shot at the office was...

Its virtually impossible now for a Republican to get into a position to run for president with out kissing the ass of the right-wing super conservatives a little bit. I don't think he's changed his views or anything like that... I just think he's doing whats neccessary.

At least, I hope thats whats going on.

professor ganson · Post by **professor ganson** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:12 pm

You're probably right, jp. But as far as our military involvement in Iraq is concerned, I don't think McCain is just kissing ass. He really is in favor of all of that.

Isn't one of the biggest hurdles for McCain his age, at this point?

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:37 am

jp wrote:
Most libertarians that I know voted Republican because they felt it was pointless to vote for their own party (and its my understanding that those guys NEVER have a decent candidate up anyways).

And most libertarians I know (registered libertarians, not libertarian leaning republicans) either didn't vote because they figured it was pointless or they voted to support their party. I don't think I've read a libertarian pundit or blogger openly state support for Bush either, unless it was on one particular issue (i.e. the war.). It's only a two party system by choice (or Duverger's law, if you buy into that) and libertarians are the biggest of the third parties and hold the most offices outside of the two majors, I don't get why someone proclaiming that political affiliation would vote for eithe rmajor party, but I digress...

it290 · Post by **it290** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:27 am

Well, with the last two elections being so close, I'm sure there were plenty of Libertarians who were inclined to vote Republican to avoid a repeat of what happened to Gore with Nader in 2000.

magnum opus · Post by **magnum opus** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:45 pm

i might buy that in 2000, but by 2004 it was exceedingly obvious that bush was pro-federal power and big-government/budget. any libertarian that's actually a libertarian wouldn't have voted for him.

on a side note how sad is it that the democrats have to be the fiscal responsibility governmental restraint party? well, as much as either of the big two can actually be anything beyond a vague middle of the road

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:20 pm

About the only reason I like McCain is that he actually gives a crap about the immigration marches and hasn't gotten offensive. He must be one of the only politicians, besides Jack Murtha, who I actually feel listens to the American people. The Bush admin, however, just seems to be doing their own thing and Delay is by far the worst of the bunch. I'm not even christian and even I'm offended by Delay constantly comparing himself to Jesus.

D · Post by D » Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:32 pm

Kanye West dissed Bush, this is nothing. This was screened and they said, we can defend this. So they let the man speak.
Did you see how fast the joke of Bush was put out.
ORGESTRATIONNNNNNNNN......
I mean if your phone is being tapped is your biggest issue then you have a great life

Kanye dissed Bush OMFG anybody found a clip of that? Not to his face though