It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush: 'I don't Give a Darn' What Americans Think About Me

page: 10
28
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Hey, at least the guy said something honest for a change.

His statement should come as no surprise to anybody really, unless you have been living in a dream land for the last 8 years... has he acted like he cares about the American people or any other people? Of course not.

Bush was set up to change the laws and prepare the US for the New American Century and so on. Now he has, so its completely irrelevant if he is popular or not. The changes are already made.

Thats the crappy thing about every political system. No matter how low the population ratings, the winners stay in office for the duration of the term, and can do a lot of damage. You put your trust in a guy and he betrays you. End result for you is that you dont like the guy, but the end result for him is that he gets everything he wants anyway. He was never after being popular. He never cared.


[edit on 18-1-2009 by Copernicus]




posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

After all, your purpose as a leader is not to be popular, it is to make the country grow, and try to get the people to be able to live good lives.


Not in a democracy. If you didn't learn about democracy in school don't you think it's time you brush up on what a leader in a Democratic society is supposed to do and how his mandate is created?


That would be all fine and well... If we lived in a Democracy.
We live in a Republic - we appoint leaders by popular vote and then let them go free like little birdies. If you don't like it then try to find a true 'democratic' country and move there. Bush is not obligated to do what you think is right, only what he thinks is right - that's the trust that Americans put in him.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


TP....that is an interesting comment.

What exactly IS THE DIFFERENCE between a Republic and a Democracy???

I see, of course, the word 'public' built into the 'republic' idea. BUT, WHAT, if anything is the difference?

WHY is the State of Virginia still referred to as a 'Commonwealth' (and it's not the only one) yet our Proud Flag has fifty stars, one for EACH STATE of the 'Union'....

WHY does our own Constitution still have a clause to recognize "State's" rights, when, indeed, we are supposed to be 'one' Nation???

Back to the point of this little thread....GWB

IF the current (OH, for just a few more hours 'President' of the United States) said, and I quote....(cleanig it up for the children)....

"I don't give a Darn" what Americans think about him....well, I call that the finest Swan Song since Richard Milhouse Nixon!!!

I'd like to think that GWB was arrogant (and he is) but he doesn't realize how HE has been played....YES!!!! GWB was a patsy!! (as if no one figured it out yet...)

Poor, poor dry-drunk ADD-HDD-and every other acronym you can make up who was propped up, put up, and displayed as the puppet that he was, and still doesn't realize he is....poor guy. He was SO 'mis-underestimated'....OK, that got stolen by THAT GUY!!!! The one I was trying to lampoon!! Well, there are plenty of 'Bushisms' to go around, so no worrys (Hey! That's one!!!)

OK, (edit here) I had some fun, but let's discuss a real Democracy, which IS the point of this latest conversation.

Actually, I DO KNOW what a Republic is, and is exactly as a previous poster described.

What we mistake for a 'democracy' is really a form of 'representational' democracy....or, better term, "advocacy".

(Ever noticed how many Congress People and Senators were Lawyers first, before seeking office???)

So, since I'm typing this and might be 'mis-underestimated' until I hit the "enter" key.....I will now hit "ente.....


Well, I'm off to put food on my family....'nite all!!!

[edit on 1/18/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
That would be all fine and well... If we lived in a Democracy.


The US system may be said to be officially a republic, instead of a democracy, but considering the means of representation it's far more of a democracy than it is a republic.

Yes, i should have been more specific in stating that most Americans wrongly believe that they live in a democracy and understandably so given how the government keeps claiming that they are exporting it or defending it. Perhaps George Bush should have said that he doesn't have to do anything he said he would because it's not a democracy? Right...


We live in a Republic - we appoint leaders by popular vote and then let them go free like little birdies.


There is a reason it's called a constitutional republic( which are at best meant to prevent leaders from going 'free' like 'little birdies' and at worse employed to keep the Edit: people from gaining full power over their future) but apparently the difference in emphasis is also somewhat wasted on you.



If you don't like it then try to find a true 'democratic' country and move there.


I already do ( i don't live in the US) so don't worry about me....


Bush is not obligated to do what you think is right, only what he thinks is right - that's the trust that Americans put in him


That is not how a constitutional republic is meant to work.
A constitutional repiblic is based on LAWS to which the elected government must adhere to or face legal action.

As for the claim that Americans elect leaders so that they can do what they like i would like to ask where you got this idea as it's most certainly not in any text books. Maybe it's the absence of text books that led you too this exceedingly misinformed view of the world/reality in general?

Stellar

[edit on 18-1-2009 by StellarX]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Stellar, THIS EXACTLY why the usual generic 'American public' just don't understand the BS thatisfedtothem, day in and day out (Did I MENTION that I'm getting a new keyboard???)

ANYWAY,not about me, it's about US....and no, that means the U.S. and YES it was an accidendatl keyboard error, but I just ran with it!! OK!?!

Hey!!! At least I didn't invade Iraq under false false pretsenseseses!!!!!



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by treemanx
Do any of the people posting here know Bush personally?

Lets see...........NO.


"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many," the Presidential Mother snapped. "It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

www.counterpunch.com...

Maybe you don't want to know about him but it's not like i or 'we' can't know about at least his choices and thus his personality.


How you base your trash talk of Bush, based upon what you see on TV, is beyond me.


You don't see anything like the disgusting truth about the little Bush on Tv. Do you know that he has been arrested at least four times?


I see people posting here, saying 'Bush thinks this, and Bush thinks that,' it's absolutely retarded. Like any of you have any idea who this man really is.


Do you agree that the things people say and do reflects on who they are or do you believe that we can not do so because people are mostly lying or doing the exact opposite of what they believe they should?

Have you listened to just his personal declarations about his beliefs? Don't they shock you at all?


You know, I'm not saying I do, but I'm sure as hell not making an idiot out of myself talking about someone I dont know like I do.


You would rather make a idiot of yourself by presuming that no one is better informed than you are about the life and times of W ?


You dont like some of the choices he made while in office? Well thank God that it was he, rather than you s**t talkers, that was running things,


I don't like any of the choices he made while pretending to serve the American public. Why do i need to 'run' things to know that he cheated and lied for eight years despite not even winning either elections?


or we would be standing in a newly accuired piece of the USSR right now.


The USSR never had the means to invade the US and up until the mid 70's no ability to do the vastly disproportionate damage it needed to do to stand any chance of winning a global nuclear conflict. When it acquired these means in the late 80's it didn't start a global war and instead used it to slowly disarm first the county that where always the aggressor and than itself. The RF have arguably maintained it's strategic superiority and yet it hasn't risked a attack on those who were always threatening a social order as defended by Russia.


You don't even realize how good you have had it your whole life.


Americans have disproportionate natural wealth, education and vast expanses of land and despite working more hours than everyone else in the industrialized world Americans are not the wealthiest or the most secure from either external or internal threats.


You live in a bubble of stupidity, paid for by the blood of our US soldiers, and think you have some idea of whats going on.


US soldiers have not in the last century defended any freedom as no American freedom has ever been under threat by external powers. At best it can be said that American soldiers fought it wars the American government invited by it's foreign policy ( oil embargo's against Japan; virtual declarations of war on Germany, twice) but mostly American soldiers undermined American freedoms by fighting in wars that left the American economy drained of the financial resources that could build infrastructure and develop citizens thus securing their future.

When American freedoms have been under threat the threats were internal and almost exclusively due to the machinations of tiny groups of wealthy persons bent and further and future domination of Americans as workers.


It's lazy, self-centered, incompetent sheeple like you that drag our good international names in the mud.


That is something the American people have not managed to do despite the best efforts of the American government to make them complicit in it's crimes. When Americans , like people elsewhere, discover that they are being used and lied to they act with the same outrage than citizens of every other country displays and understandably polls have indicated that even Iraqi's and Afghans in general understand that the American people are not to blame for the crimes of out of control governments. These people after all have experience with tyrants.


I'm just as mad as anyone of the government slowly taking away freedoms, but dont slander the Country that has kept your ass safe for your whole life.


The US government have consistently avoided protecting either the constitutionally guaranteed ( at least it used to be) rights of it's citizens or the economic power that guarantees the security required for the struggle against oppressive governments.

The US government have proved itself apt at trying to steal your rights and far better at exporting your jobs and leaving you virtually unarmed against the possibility of a future strategic war with other major powers of the world.

Sure it could do worse but considering how much of your taxes it consumes while giving you nothing in return few, if any, other industrial countries even comes close.


According to the crap talkers, we should be living in a third world country by the way the last 8 years have gone, right? Do you even realize how good you actually have it? Wake up.


I too appreciate what i have , and how little others in the world try to make do with, but this does not mean that we should just thank those who are robbing us blind for not taking everything immediately; there is a good reason why you milk a cow for a long time before you slaughter it for food.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by TruthParadox
That would be all fine and well... If we lived in a Democracy.


The US system may be said to be officially a republic, instead of a democracy, but considering the means of representation it's far more of a democracy than it is a republic.


No, it's really not... We DO live in a Republic. That's the system of government we have. Read up on what a Democracy and Republic are and then tell me in what way America is more of a Democracy than a Republic.


Originally posted by StellarX
Yes, i should have been more specific in stating that most Americans wrongly believe that they live in a democracy and understandably so given how the government keeps claiming that they are exporting it or defending it. Perhaps George Bush should have said that he doesn't have to do anything he said he would because it's not a democracy? Right...


lol... That has nothing to do with a Democracy, Republic, or anything else. That's just politics - it's how the game is played. Do you think Obama is going to make good on all of his promises? He truely would have to be the 'messiah' to do that
...



Originally posted by StellarX

We live in a Republic - we appoint leaders by popular vote and then let them go free like little birdies.


There is a reason it's called a constitutional republic( which are at best meant to prevent leaders from going 'free' like 'little birdies' and at worse employed to keep the Edit: people from gaining full power over their future) but apparently the difference in emphasis is also somewhat wasted on you.


Of course there are ristrictions to what a President can do. The President has very little to do with the government as a whole - which is why myself and others understand how ridiculous it is to blame one man for ALL of this countries problems - it's absurd. I think there's enough blame to go around.
But what was the point I was making? That the President, after elected, is not obligated to agree with the majority of citizens. If he's within his limits, he can do whatever the Hell he wants no matter what you say.



Originally posted by StellarX

Bush is not obligated to do what you think is right, only what he thinks is right - that's the trust that Americans put in him


That is not how a constitutional republic is meant to work.
A constitutional repiblic is based on LAWS to which the elected government must adhere to or face legal action.


Yep. He has broken no laws. He's within his limits.
But again you're missing the point - he's not obligated to agree with the majority.


Originally posted by StellarX
As for the claim that Americans elect leaders so that they can do what they like i would like to ask where you got this idea as it's most certainly not in any text books. Maybe it's the absence of text books that led you too this exceedingly misinformed view of the world/reality in general?


That's not what I said lol...
I'm saying that Americans vote for a President and put trust in that person, but once he/she becomes president, they are not obligated to do what the voters thought he/she would do. After Obama becomes President, he can choose to shut down guantanamo bay or not, regardless of what he 'promised' the public.
That was my point but I see it flew over your head.

Thanks for trying though
.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I think this little line says ALOT:

BUSH: Yes, look it — these opinion polls are nothing but a, you know, a shot of yesterday’s news.



Why does that mean alot? because it makes no sense and it shows his thought processing. Something is wrong with his mind, and I'm not saying that to be insulting. He says things like this often.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Whatever happend to OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, and FOR THE PEOPLE?



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup


"Slick Willy" Bill Clinton was our public opinion, take a morning poll president.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


TP....I was with you until a claim you made in your latest post....in which it seems you wish to 'absolve' George W. Bush by, in essence saying...'Some one else did it!!!'

Nah! Isn't going to work!

He was the 'decider'....remember? GWB as much as admitted, though not under oath (darn it!) that he approved torture techniques on the 'enemy combatants' .... such a clever euphanism!!

I would invite any who care to simply review the Ex-Pres televised address to the Nation from last Thursday....when he pre-empted 'Ugly Betty' in the Eastern Time zone!!! Damn him!!!!!

Funny, that, but more seriously....I refer all to research a television reviewer, Tom Shales, who writes for the Washington Post. You will be well-served to read his comments from the next day's (Friday's) edition, in the 'Style' section, regarding that 'Farewell' speech, and its incredibly out-of-touch nature, combined with a certain narcissitic self-congratulatory tone.

(My words, by the way....not Mr. Shales')



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by questioningall
 


President Bush has already made sure he cannot be held accountable for the war crimes he has committed during his presidency by amending the War Crimes Bill -

"Burried deep inside the War Crimes Detainee bill recently passed by the House, is a provision that would pardon President Bush and his administration for violation of the Geneva conventions. Some of these crimes are violations punishable by death.

President Bush seeks to Pardon himself and his administration in advance for violating the Geneva Conventions in an effort to avoid possible prosectution in the future. "

Link for further details -
www.newstrend.com...



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
TP....I was with you until a claim you made in your latest post....in which it seems you wish to 'absolve' George W. Bush by, in essence saying...'Some one else did it!!!'


Nope, I never said anything of that nature. Could you quote the part where I said that?
I don't think that Bush should take all the blame for our country as we do not live in a monarchy. He was not the only one that screwed up - not even close. Blaming everything on George Bush is extremely narrow minded and a bit childish.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
He was the 'decider'....remember? GWB as much as admitted, though not under oath (darn it!) that he approved torture techniques on the 'enemy combatants' .... such a clever euphanism!!


Oh, is that what this is about? The torture?
You know such techniques are only used when the person has information which could save lives of innocent civilians.
...
So... By not supporting such techniques, you feel that the comfort of a terrorist is more important than the safety of a civilian?
Sorry, but I would do a Hell of a lot more than 'water-board' someone if I believed I could save innocent lives in the process.
People have to get in their head that safety demands sacrifice.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Who cares what anyone thinks...that's what I say.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I did not vote for Obama but I wish him well for the sake of our country.I wrote in Ron Paul's name.I'm a totally disabled veteran and a conservative in the Reagan mode. I'm the least liberal guy on the planet.And I only said all this to say that Bush needs to be hauled up on war crime charges including profiteering.It's fine to talk about "moving on to the future"--Even Obama has stated that. But 4000 US soldiers and countless innocent Iraqi women and children will never be able to move on again.And don't give me that "war is hell" crap--This was not a war for our freedom--This was a senseless rape of a country that had done nothing to us-All in the name of Halliburton and other big corportations--Putting Bush on trial would serve another purpose as well.It would put future presidents on notice that they can't wipe their butt with our constitution.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
He is a politician...of course he doesn't care.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I understand in some ways how caring about others you are helping can influence your decisions. A decided lack of emotion can bring forth the analytically correct answer for a tough issue at times.

But Bush? Dain bramaged. He may have had too much home grown moonshine in the past, or influence from the good ol' Texas political circle of corruption, but even if all that was put aside. Bush had so little understanding of social interaction, that he was but a shadow for the later years of his presidency.

The only exceptions are some of the speeches he has made on the economy and war. I watched what I could stand with the same revolting distaste and this fringe of fascinated, perverted humor as I would a Van Impe evangelical show.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


TP...it has repeatedly been shown that a person undergoing torture will say whatever he/she believes is what the torturers want to hear, just to stop the torture.

A far better technique is to gain trust....and in the un-guarded moments, morsels of truth drip out......

(edit) to expand on my post, with further thoughts...

If we are discussing the treatment of 'Khalid Shiek Muhammed', who is well known to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks....AND if you'd assume that he'd give any viable information, while being tortured, then you're missing the point!!

This guy obviously HATED the USA....and no way is torture going to allow any new information to be gleaned, he will simply LAUGH and hope to die, since his religion promises some sort of reward after death!!

Really??? 72 virgins....hmmmm....why 72, exactly, and in the ever-afterlife, after the first 72, now what??? Are they now your wives?!?!?

Sounds like 'HELL' to me........

[edit on 1/21/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I felt it would have been appropriate to have the song, "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead.". Played at the inauguration, or for the closing of the Larry King exit interview.. But.. Hey, What do I know



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Yes. Why just the other day I was eating out of a trashcan cursing Bush's name for making the trashcan I was eating out of. Curse you Bush! You're the problem for the world's woahs!! It's not religious extremists who make it their daily mission to kill others who don't hold the same belief!


When did these religious extremist make it their mission to come over to the US and attack it often or at all? Where is the proof? To be more specific which Iraqi or Afghan religious extremist attacked the US?


It's not the hate that flows through our veins which is tied to a lack of understanding of different perspectives thus causing us to segregate ourselves and refuse to work together for a better world!


Who's killing who en mass? Why blame religious extremist for the world's miseries when it's national governments who are giving invasion orders and creating economic policies that starves and otherwise kills tens of millions per year?


No! It's Bush! It's all Bush! I don't know how he did it all, but he did it by-god! I have no one else to blame so I'll just keep using his name!
Curse you Bush!!!


You can curse Bush as a typical figurehead but admittedly that wont get you very far if you don't have a deeper understanding of the system.


People are so transparent
...


Far more ignorant and/or misinformed than transparent but at least your view is quite transparent; just shift the blame onto people you have never met ('religious extremist') and never attacked you.


Originally posted by TruthParadox
No, it's really not... We DO live in a Republic. That's the system of government we have.


I am quite aware of the difference and your instance matters little to me.


Read up on what a Democracy and Republic are and then tell me in what way America is more of a Democracy than a Republic.


The system of representation perhaps? When the 'founding fathers' created a republic ( to protect their wealth and power) they most certainly didn't intend many people to vote and this really what that system of government is meant to do. While the US can thus nominally be called a republic , and those with wealth and power would rather not have you voting at all, the people have basically turned it into a democracy ( if not the best kind) by constant struggle.


lol... That has nothing to do with a Democracy, Republic, or anything else. That's just politics - it's how the game is played. Do you think Obama is going to make good on all of his promises? He truely would have to be the 'messiah' to do that
...


In my opinion it has everything to do with democracy as that's what Americans believe they have hence the fact that they can be propagandized to hate non-democratic systems so much. I don't believe Obama will change the fundamental course of the US national security state and perhaps more importantly i don't believe he ever intended to even make significant changes. The industrialist and money power who funded him most certainly don't think he will.



Of course there are ristrictions to what a President can do. The President has very little to do with the government as a whole - which is why myself and others understand how ridiculous it is to blame one man for ALL of this countries problems - it's absurd. I think there's enough blame to go around.


Glad we can agree on that score. What you do not seem to admit is that in the last century , at least, there has been a consistently concentration of power in the executive branch and that it is slowly, and sometimes not so slowly, eroding the means of the other branches to prevent it from doing what it wants. This is why the invasion of Iraq could take place without the declaration of war only the senate should be empowered to make.


But what was the point I was making? That the President, after elected, is not obligated to agree with the majority of citizens. If he's within his limits, he can do whatever the Hell he wants no matter what you say.


The president, even in a republic, can not do what he likes and at worse the rich and nominally powerful senators can legally prevent him from taking a course of action they do not agree with. Since these senators are at least in theory elected by the people of the various states it's ignorant to claim that a president can nominally do what he likes no matter what the majority says. Since most senators work for very powerful interest and are elected despite what their constituents wants a president can start getting the power do what he and this small minority of senators and their financial backers wants him to do. This is how minorties rule in a republic and this is how they rule in even a nominal democracy such as US citizens have achieved.


Yep. He has broken no laws. He's within his limits.


The Bush government have broken many laws too count ( torture comes readily to mind) but since the senators do not seem to be working for the people they have not stopped the Bush government despite the efforts of majority as represented by a few 'better' senators.


But again you're missing the point - he's not obligated to agree with the majority.


In the case of Bush he isn't obligated to agree with anyone but those who selected him into power as the people of the US did not elect him on either occasions. The Bush regime can and did do what they liked because they quickly realsed that those who had the power to stop them ( senators) were elected to work towards the same goals.

As for the claim that he is not obligated to agree with the majority a president is under almost every form of government ever considered a agent of other interest and forces. Certainly his function in a republic isn't to do what the majority wants but that's why Americans fought for the vote and got it. What you are claiming is that the right to vote where handed out like candy and that votes where never meant to direct the government. That is patently false as the original voting system were created so that the few who were allowed to vote could in fact direct the government to do as the pleased. To now claim that a majority vote does not matter when almost everyone has managed to legally force themselves into the system is to basically side with the rich tiny minority who hate the fact that they have lost exclusive use over this legal means to direct 'their government'.

A president is supposed to responsive to the majority vote in a republic ( yes, i am aware of the special measures to give sparsely populated states more say in the federal government) and to dismiss the entire electoral process based on the premise that the president was ever legally enforced to act according to a minority of voters is a lie.


That's not what I said lol...
I'm saying that Americans vote for a President and put trust in that person, but once he/she becomes president, they are not obligated to do what the voters thought he/she would do.


Which is simply inaccurate. That is not how it works and it never did. If you wish to argue that a republic was designed so that rich minorities could rule over the vast majority that is true but with electoral reform that function of the republic was in very large part lost as the rich lost their exclusive use of voting privileges.


After Obama becomes President, he can choose to shut down guantanamo bay or not, regardless of what he 'promised' the public.


No, he can decide to try or not to try but he can not choose to enact nearly as many dictatorial powers as you believe him to have.


That was my point but I see it flew over your head.

Thanks for trying though
.


The only point you seem to wish to maintain here is that American presidents do not have any legal obligation to give any credence to the promises or demands made by or from them by the electorate. In that you are disturbingly far off course of how even republics should work but perhaps , and even more disturbingly, accurate in how Bush and his backers tried to role back many of the achievements of Americans in half a century.

In closing then a 'constitutional republic' ( laws and practices chosen so as to best preserve their wealth&power) is what the elitist founders thought they could get away with and even then they had to amend that constitution with a bill of rights to appease the large majority who wanted a far more democratic system. From those until these the citizens of the United States have consistently tried to achieve ever more and more access to that system ( which the majority did not have) so that they could reform it to become more responsive; to turn it into democracy or to make it's outcomes more and more democratic.

Stellar



new topics




 
28
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join