Originally posted by kix
I really feel that just as in Germany in the 40 a lot of people have been brainwashed and they dont EVEN know it!!

... yet.


That was a good story about the future head of state dining with Lizzy too, LOL. "Black sheep" indeed.

Originally posted by kix
Seriously...
:
the other problem is that I see just 2 kind of people, those who would condone, endorse and support GWB no matter what (even if he instates a DRAFT) or the others that look at GWB as a problem to americas economy international policies and for the good of the country.

For a moment there, I thought I was about to read an intellectually honest response, something like:

"the other problem is that I see just 2 kind of people, those who would condone, endorse and support GWB no matter what (even if he instates a DRAFT) or
those who would condemn, accuse, and deride GWB for everything that happens in this world."

Then I remembered, this is ATS.

Originally posted by Bout Time

Lordy Lordy, there are two for my virtual scrapbook!!

Oooo...dem mean streets done made me a man!
How you carry yourself can mean many things, BT. I prefer the old adage "Walk softly, but carry a big stick".

So Georgie wasn't playing nice. He was with Clinton, after all.

In my humble Kerry is a joke that said I dont think I am in the "lets bash bush for anything even if he sneezes, the bottom line is that knowing the weasel ways of yuor present (AND FUTURE) gov maybe the dems will make the draft look good and push in that direction and GWB playing the devil advocate to say in the last moment "the future of the beacon of hope and liberty will not be in the hands of terrorists so its our duty to keep the world free" and boom next you are dressed in desert camouflage.

Its not arguing about GWB goofiness but the actual reallity of the US goverment, and I think Bout Time pointed it nicely.

people have been brainwashed and they dont know it YET ...they even keep going their merry ways into Jesusland...

Originally posted by Cassie Clay
Bout Time,
I was not able to view the picture, but the vivid description & subsequent psychoanalysis of GWB was quite shocking indeed. I think that if the reporter's & your interpretation of the interior workings of his mind is accurate (though really, there is no way to prove this as none of us are psychic), it might be grounds for possible impeachment, or at least an expose on 60 Minutes. The mere thought of a person in a high-ranking political position displaying the attributes of assertiveness, competitiveness, and "alpha male behavior" is quite aberrant; I think only Adolph Hitler himself ever displayed similar behavior. As for GWB's sudden departure from the event, I must agree that it was quite rude and uncalled-for--it's not like there would be anything more pressing going on in the world for the President of the United States not to attend the Clinton Library gala in its entirety. It's on the same level as Bill getting a bj in the oval office by one of his interns while he was supposed to be on-call & focused as the leader of the United States--but no, wait, Bush's faux pas is worse because he is *Bush* after all & we all hate every single thing he does.

Down with Bush! Viva La Revolution!

--Cassie

First of All he did nothing wrong. So what if he tried to get in the door first. Second we have officially elected him to be our Alpha Male. Its like a colony of ants choosing who will be the alpha male. We have choosen him to be our leader, and we expect him to act in a manly fashion, and would like for him to act in a manly fashion. Respect your Commander in Chief.

Originally posted by IBM
We have choosen him to be our leader, and we expect him to act in a manly fashion, and would like for him to act in a manly fashion.

Shoving his way to the front of the line was the action of a little boy, not a man. Acting in a manly fashion does not include ridiculous posturing to show whose is bigger.

That said, I thought everyone behaved rather well during the ceremony. I love the pic of Dubya and Chelsea fighting (?) over an umbrella; he seemed to be treating her like he treats his own daughters.



edit to include pic

[edit on 12/1/2004 by sandge]

...like it he treats his own daughters? Really.
Care to shed some informative insight into this?
How does his actions with Chelsa correlate or equate to those non-factual asserted claims of how he treats his daughters?

Wowzers.



seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
...like it he treats his own daughters? Really.
Care to shed some informative insight into this?
How does his actions with Chelsa correlate or equate to those non-factual asserted claims of how he treats his daughters?

Oh, for the love of Pete. Some of you people will argue with anything, won't you?

Dubya seems to be a very loving and caring father. We all saw pics/video of him laughing and playing around with his daughters during the campaign. IMHO, he seemed in this pic to be treating Chelsea in much the same way...laughing and goofing around.

Sheesh.

Originally posted by Seekerof
...like it he treats his own daughters? Really.
Care to shed some informative insight into this?
How does his actions with Chelsa correlate or equate to those non-factual asserted claims of how he treats his daughters?

Wowzers.



seekerof

Damn Seek, she's giving your boy a compliment!

Now, when it gets to be Chelsea vs. Ricky Martin Bush for president, watch old 'Uncle Glass pipe' get nasty!!

Originally posted by IBM



First of All he did nothing wrong. So what if he tried to get in the door first. Second we have officially elected him to be our Alpha Male. Its like a colony of ants choosing who will be the alpha male. We have choosen him to be our leader, and we expect him to act in a manly fashion, and would like for him to act in a manly fashion. Respect your Commander in Chief.

Well actually he wasn't elected to act in a "manly" fashon, he was elected to act in a responsible and adult fashon.

Of course, one could argue that he was elected to lead. So, since lead means "be in front", he's doing his presidental duty by butting ahead.

Yes?

This thread is an example of some of the worst that ATS has to offer, and why I believe ignorance is currently winning here.

I wasn't going to post to this thread at all, because I have no interest in following it further, and even less interest in attracting the kind of ad hominem attention that is driving ATS into the mud.

But since I am including it in my signature as an example of how ignorance wins, I thought it only fair to inform this thread's contributors of that fact.

Actually, if you look closely, it appears Clinton is already out of the door. I don't think Bush is trying to rush through to beat him. If you think about it, I'm sure many of us have still photos taken of ourselves that could be interpreted many ways.

Is this what we have resorted to?

As I see it, as BoutTime explained, there was an established protocol for this formal occasion which this "president" attempted to circumvent/defy.

The thread is titled "national embarrassment". That refers to another sample of the man's behavior that is unsavory and unstatesmanlike. Of course there will be people jumping to the man's defence, who would forgive anything, as welll as those who take a critical look.

You could choose to ignore it. But that that choose not ignore it to are certainly not ignorant. Thankyou for further publicizing the topic, Majic!

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

You could choose to ignore it. But that that choose not ignore it to are certainly not ignorant. Thankyou for further publicizing the topic, Majic!

Yes, and congratulations to another WATS word count award winner!
Given that the thread is linked in your signature as an example of how ignorance wins, I for one would enjoy to hear your postion on exactly what you're deeming ignorant? As a breif aside, I also was slightly perplexed as to your ad hominem way of staving off a potential ad hominem retort against you? You see, ad hominem means, as I'm sure you're aware, to appeal to people’s emotions and beliefs rather than their ability to think, so you can see where not knowing where you come down on the point of what constitutes how ignorance wins can tweak a modest mind like mine.

First of all, I applaud BT for bringing to light a rather deep analysisof dubya's persona. I love how criticizing Bush for his many, many character and political flaws is labelled "bush bashing" as to dismiss it. The man is criticized so much for good reason.

I've said it before, people have contempt in their heart for the man b/c of how bad things have gotten, not b/c they're so great.

Originally posted by Bout Time
Yes, and congratulations to another WATS word count award winner!

I'm not sure what a "word count award" is. What are you talking about?

Originally posted by Bout Time
Given that the thread is linked in your signature as an example of how ignorance wins, I for one would enjoy to hear your postion on exactly what you're deeming ignorant?

I'm satisfied that the posts in this thread speak for themselves and do not require interpretation by me to make my point.

Originally posted by Bout Time
As a breif aside, I also was slightly perplexed as to your ad hominem way of staving off a potential ad hominem retort against you?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. My criticism is directed at the content of this thread, where criticism belongs. How the contributors feel about their own contributions is their business, as are their feelings about my opinion of the thread.

My criticism of the thread is that it demonstrates how ignorance wins on ATS. Not all of the posts in this thread contribute to the problem, but most of them do. If you think your posts are among them, that is based on your assessment, not mine, since I have not and will not name names. The posts speak for themselves, as well they should.

As for the matter of ad hominem attention, I am not the topic of this thread. Posts -- not individuals -- are the subject of my criticism. I prefer to keep it that way and don't see why that should be considered controversial.

Originally posted by Majic

I'm satisfied that the posts in this thread speak for themselves and do not require interpretation by me to make my point.

Of course they do, since you're not in a wholesale condemnation, but assailing either the pro or con argument. Simple question, simple answer.

****************

If you think your posts are among them, that is based on your assessment, not mine, since I have not and will not name names. The posts speak for themselves, as well they should.

I thing my posts are germain to the character assessment; specifically, the lack there of, so no problem with what I've posted from me. Again, circuitous is your style; not to be difficult, but say what you will and stand by it; people are more cordial than you're giving them credit for.

****************

As for the matter of ad hominem attention, I am not the topic of this thread. Posts -- not individuals -- are the subject of my criticism. I prefer to keep it that way and don't see why that should be considered controversial.

No controversy, good god no! Just a polite invocation for points & brevity

*Apologies to George W Bush and those assembled here, my itchy trigger finger pushed the wrong button and this ended up busting through the doors like an unwelcome noisy gatecrasher *

[edit on 2-12-2004 by MaskedAvatar]