I don't get it. So this guy is defending Bush by saying that the democrats did the same thing? Sounds a lot like, "Everybody else is doing it so why can't we?" All politicians are liars, this is nothing new.
I think it's more that he's defending Bush by pointing out that the very same people those people with all their anti-bush signs were supporting, supported Bush when he was preparing to go to war with Iraq. Bush, in this case is a scapegoat. I don't support him, but I know a scapegoating when I see one
All that glitters... Even the stars
All things precious... Even your life
The King of Bandits can steal them all
In the blink of an eye
Looked to me like the protesters were just a bit too cynical. Instead of doing a, A B C choice, he should have done A B C D and given 2 republicans and 2 democrats. He made it too obvious for most of them. Hara
a) half of all american protesters are idiots who don't know why they're protesting, and are only protesting, for the sake of protesting.
b) politicians are acting just like the steriotypical politician. Speaking high and mighty about something when it is the popular idea, then backing down and saying the opposite when public opinion changes.
I'm not saying that Bush wouldn't have done the same thing...hell, if he wasn't president, and it was actually possible for him to do so, he probably would have jumped ship like all the other rats, and pointed his finger at who ever was in charge.
Being the president of the U.S. he can't switch sides and point fingers, because ultimatly he's the figure head for everything that goes on in this country.
Maybe sometime in my lifetime there will be and election that ultimately doesn't come down to the lesser of two evils.
Quote:politicians are acting just like the steriotypical politician. Speaking high and mighty about something when it is the popular idea, then backing down and saying the opposite when public opinion changes
Personaly I've never understood this point of view. I thought we elected officials to be our REPRESENTATIVES. If public opinion changes, should not the opinion of our duly elected representatives do the same? Why is it wrong for a politican to change his mind when the people change thiers? Is it not his job to be the voice of the people? I'm going straight to hell, just like my momma said.
if you want him to change with the public opinion why elect anyone ? elect a PC with internet connection and panel of 10 congress leaders ( who have a 1 year term and a max of 5 times ) to input action for people to vote on
There's also the point that when many of the quotes were made Iraq did have WMDs. But the inspectors did their jobs and got rid of em.
Though Kerry's quote was more recent than that. Not alot of difference between Kerry and Bush anyway Cept maybe a few less wars if Kerry wins.
Presidents cannot be very far from center anymore and still get elected. W only fell through the cracks because Gore is about interesting as a pile of sand.
And Xanthium, I think you're only partly right. If public opinion does change about something, politicians should take notice, but not to the extent that their opinions are founded wholly upon the prevailing wind which is so often the case now.
Quote:if you want him to change with the public opinion why elect anyone ? elect a PC with internet connection and panel of 10 congress leaders ( who have a 1 year term and a max of 5 times ) to input action for people to vote on
I actually kind of like this system... except you'd be prone to hax. If you put control of the system back directly in the hands of the people you may actually see a decrease in the "I don't give a @#%$" or "It doesn't matter" attitude of the majority. I'm going straight to hell, just like my momma said.
Quote:I don't get it. So this guy is defending Bush by saying that the democrats did the same thing?
Well, not just "did the same thing" But had access to the same information. Given the intellignce data through the 90s and into this decade, all signs indicated that Saddam had WMds and WMD programs, was violating international treaties, and was a dangerous tyrant that needed to be removed from power.
Both sides of the aisle agreed on this... Up until Bush decided to actually DO what both sides had been calling for.
Quote:I was once punched in the face by a " peace protester " that was pretty cool
Wouldn't be the first time thats happened. Happened just the other day in Boston, when some union thugs beat up a group of Bush Supporters at a demonstration.
Quote:Happened just the other day in Boston, when some union thugs beat up a group of Bush Supporters at a demonstration.
Holy hell, unions are good for something after all!
...I kid, I kid.
Seriously, I may be missing a huge step here, but how did Bush and Kerry get to be our choices (yeah, I know Bush is incumbent, but before that )? What insane Nazi scientist devised our torturous election system?
Quote:But the inspectors did their jobs and got rid of em.
The inspectors jobs were not to get rid of them, but to confirm that Saddam got rid of them. The inspectors themselves don't know where the weapons went. The burden of proof was on Iraq to show that they were destroyed.