Jump to content

Furious George


Rick Munroe
This topic is 6630 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Remember how the Dean Scream brought down Howard Dean? The same thing can be done with the angry, fidgety, nervous, screaming Burning Bush from last night's debate. Only this time, it's for real. Do the soccer Moms really want this man to have his finger on the red button? Keep repeating the "Angry Bush" meme...

 

From the Kos diaries, a compilation of press quotes about the debate:

 

Andrew Sullivan: "There were moments early on... when he seemed to me to be close to shouting; and his hyper-aggressiveness, having to respond to everything, went at times over the line of persuasiveness."

 

Ron Forunier, AP: "As he fought to keep his emotions in check in a testy, personal debate with Sen. John Kerry, the president asserted 'That answer almost made me scowl.'... Several answers brought Bush's emotions to the surface, for better or worse, as he sought to curb Kerry's momentum.... Bush was the most aggressive, at one point overrunning moderator Charles Gibson's attempt to pose a question.."

 

David Niven, political science professor at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton (from the above article):"Bush seemed wound a bit too tight. He was a little like Nixon sort of jumping out of his suit... He looked bad on the TV close-ups.""

 

Jonah Goldberg, National Review: "WHY DOES BUSH... Sound like he's angry at the guy asking about making drugs cheaper?

 

Paul Begala, CNN: "Good debate. The press will say it's a draw, but I think Kerry bested Bush -- or rather Bush made a few errors. Two words for President Bush: anger management. He spent much of the debate nearly yelling at the audience."

 

John Whitesides, Reuters: "An angry Bush at one point cut off moderator Charles Gibson to upbraid Kerry for criticising the size of the coalition backing the United States in Iraq, saying it denigrated allies like Britain and Poland."

 

Beth Gorham, CBC News: "It all added up to a major challenge for the president, who appeared angry and defensive during attacks from Kerry in a tense sparring match on Sept. 30 that was watched by some 62 million Americans."

 

Oliver Willis: "BUSH FLIPS OUT: Click here to watch your President flip out of his gourd. I've never seen anything like it.

 

Billmon (back from the dead): "If Kerry and the Dems can't make an issue out of the fact that the president of the United States is utterly incapable of controlling his hairtrigger temper, they don't deserve to win this election... I mean, the man is a walking time bomb."

 

David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com: "BUSH MAD, KERRY COMPOSED... Though Mr. Bush was more composed than in last week's first presidential debate, all agreed his tone was sometimes antagonistic and he again appeared uncomfortable being challenged. Kerry, on the other hand, was viewed as measured and articulate. "

 

William Rivers Pitt: Bush was every inch the angry man on Friday night, which is dangerous enough. But to witness anger combined with belligerent ignorance, with a willful denial of basic facts, to witness a man utterly incapable of admitting to any mistakes while his clear errors in judgment are costing his country in blood, to see that combination roiling within the man who is in charge of the most awesome military arsenal in the history of the planet, is more than dangerous. It is flatly terrifying.

 

Adam Nagourney, New York Times: But the president, who seemed distracted and fidgety in the Sept. 30 debate, grew increasingly comfortable through the night, though at times he flashed glances of anger at Mr. Kerry that were reminiscent of his demeanor the week before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smart Ass, get a life. Bush rightfully responded to the US going it alone. As for the rest you will go anywhere, anyplace to find someone to bash Bush so you can feel happy. Even the "leftist" media pretty much call it even. Please have good sex, which you are famous for, and sleep with a smile on your face instead of worrying about "Furious George".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Poor little Repiglican. Your pretendident's miserable

>failure is almost over and you can't stand it, can you? You

>were hoping for that Gay Marriage Amendment to pass too,

>weren't you?

 

This election is very important to what happens in our nation's future. You will find there are many people throughout this land that still don't know who to vote for. They are the much talked about "swing voters" that will decide this election. I am historically one of "those" people. I am a fairly political person and my checkbook contains the names of BOTH Republicans and Democrats. The reason I mention this here is to say that those that Hate Bush so bad to constantly revert to juvenile name calling actually hurts your cause, or candidate's cause, if you are trying to sway someone's vote instead of helping. "Swing Voters" actually look for reasons to vote for a person (not against someone) and issues, not name calling that puts them off, are what they will use to make their decision.

 

The debates are very important tools for these "Swing voters". Why? because it gives them a chance to see the issues of each candidate. They don't care who "won" or "lost" the debate as far as the polls and pundits go, they wanted to hear the positions and issues. With that said, I found the last debate to be very good and think that the questions from Joe Q Public were excellent. After this debate it was very clear where each stood on many issues. From preemptive attacks or wars to stop terrorism to abortion to taxes to Government or non Government Healthcare to Canadian Drug imports, etc...

 

If you really feel strongly about this election, you may sway voters with issues but you also may repel them to the other side with name calling.

 

I found out long ago there isn't actually a $1000 check difference in a Republican and a Democrat, neither are very Holy. Don't be a Political Bigot and just vote for all Republicans or all Democrats. Look at both sides in any Election, look at the issues that are important to YOU, and make a serious thoughtful decision...IT is that important.

 

Now for the curious, Yes I think I have now made up my mind who I will vote for in this election (unless something changes my mind before Election Day). I will be voting for 1 Republican for Congress, 1 Democrat for the US Senate, and 1 Democrat for President. Based on the issues I find important to my life.

 

I am KY_TOP and I don't Care if anyone approves of this message.

 

PS: Whoever you plan to vote for...PLEASE VOTE... It is that important

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KY Top:

 

While I agree with your argument in principle, FlJohn's response to Rick Munroe doesn't much appear to be the reaction of an undecided voter. While Bush was definitely more animated in the second debate compared to his performance in the first, he still comes off as angry, bullying,stubborn, disingenuous and dishonest, at least that's my read. I have no doubt that some will see those characteristics as "strengths".

 

Of course, anyone who disagrees with the Bush agenda gets branded "liberal", as if that word is somehow profane. I don't consider the word "conservative" a bad word. As a matter of fact, on economic policy, I would count some of my own views to be fairly conservative. The problem is, George W. Bush is no conservative; he's merely an unprincipled reactionary. That's why many conservatives and reasonable Republicans have such a bone to pick with him. His profligate spending coupled with tax cuts that largely benefit the most wealthy Americans have resulted in deficits that future generations will be paying for, and can hardly be considered "conservative". The old "tax and spend Democrats" mantra the Republicans have been so fond of using over the years is losing meaning, considering the Republicans exercise control of all three branches of government. Our current problem is akin to turning a child loose on a spending spree with a credit card, with the thought that somebody else down the road will have to figure out how to pay the bill.....perhaps someone not yet born or not yet of the age to vote and exercise an opinion in the matter.

 

The Republican party once had a proud tradition of fiscal responsibility and restraint. Seems that tradition has evaporated.

Once upon a time, we had usury laws that governed maximum rates of interest that banks could charge borrowers. Usury laws mean nothing these days. At a time when the prime rate is still low, and has been throughout the tenure of the Bush Administration, consumer interest rates are at an all time high, and increasing. Now why would this be? Well, one of Bush's first acts in office was to sign legislation that gave credit card banks increasing power to jack up interest rates and impose considerable penalties for such things as late payments and overlimit fees. Some credit card banks are now charging as much as 48% APR. On the other hand, there has been little if any effort to discourage these same banks from extending credit to those who are less than credit worthy. As a matter of fact, just the opposite is true. These banks are delighted to provide credit to financially strapped folks in the very hope that they will make minimum payments, and actually either make a late payment or go over their credit line, as this allows the bank to jack up the interest rates and impose penalties. Allow me to cite a common scenario. It all starts with a letter, complimenting the potential victim on their "outstanding credit history" (no such history exists" and an offer of their credit card with a very low "introductory" annual percentage rate of 1.9%, which disappears in about six months and becomes anywhere from 18% to 24.99%. For the sake of example, we'll say the credit line is $500, with a minimum monthly payment of $10 and 21% interest after the introductory rate expires. Bonus points and awards are used as an enticement to get the cardholder to go out and run up a bill. Minimum monthly payments are kept at a level only slightly above the monthly interest charges. The average consumer makes payments that are the minimum or only slightly above. They end up using the card for an unanticipated car repair, and get close to the maximum credit line, but do not exceed it. The current balance is now $499. In the mean time, they've forgotten when the introductory APR offer expires, and expire it does. Suddenly, the new interest rate is imposed, and it raises the amount due, going over the credit line by a few dollars. To make matters worse, you mailed your payment in plenty of time for the due date, but for some reason beyond your control, it arrives a day late. The cardholder then gets a letter telling him/her what a naughty person they have been, exceeding their credit line and making a late payment. As a result, the bank will tell you they are now forced to impose a penalty of $39 overlimit fee, plus a late payment charge of $39, and raise the interest rate to 28.9%. Instead of your minimum monthly payment due being $10, now they tell you to pony up $90 to bring your account out of default status. Your new monthly payment is raised to $15, with $12 now going for interest. Making minimum payments and not making any additional charges to the account, it will take 63 months to pay off the balance.

 

Now most folks here, certainly wise folks, would never get into such a fix, because they would pay all or most of the balance due, carrying little or no accumulated indebtedness. But what about the college student who has little available income, or the minimum wage earner who has little savvy about finance or credit? It is these folks the banks are targeting for this totally legal but unethical brand of what is really loan sharking.

 

Why does our government allow this kind of thing to be allowed? Could the fact that MBNA, one of the largest credit card banks in the country, contributed a cool million dollars to George W. Bush's first presidential campaign have anything to do with it? What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>KY Top:

>

>While I agree with your argument in principle, FlJohn's

>response to Rick Munroe doesn't much appear to be the reaction

>of an undecided voter.

 

I never said FlJohn was an undecided voter but was saying there are probably many lurkers here that are. Don't turn them off, give them issues that they care about if you want to influence their vote.

 

> Well, one of Bush's first acts in office was to sign legislation >that gave credit card banks increasing power to jack up interest >rates and impose considerable penalties for such things as late

>payments and overlimit fees.

 

He signed the Legisaltion but who passed it? Doesn't Congress share some of the blame? But this is would be a good issue that both sides should address in a debate

 

>Why does our government allow this kind of thing to be

>allowed? Could the fact that MBNA, one of the largest credit

>card banks in the country, contributed a cool million dollars

>to George W. Bush's first presidential campaign have anything

>to do with it? What do you think?

 

I don't know but Kerry is no different as far as campaign contributors go. The Union and Trial Lawyer money going into his campaign scares me badly. As I already said, from the voice of experience with both Republican and Democrat Names in my checkbook, there isn't a $1000 check difference in anyone of them when it comes to contributor influence. Just different check writers on each side.I think that is one thing people liked about Dean. With all the money he raised from individuals through the internet they thought he might be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>He signed the Legisaltion but who passed it? Doesn't Congress

>share some of the blame? But this is would be a good issue

>that both sides should address in a debate

 

Did we not have a GOP controlled Congress for much of Bush's Administration? (Except for that brief period after Jim Jeffords became an independent and the Democrats were in charge of the Senate).

 

If you want to talk about issues that people care about, how about national security? In the days after September 11th, Bush did everything right, up until he adopted the neocon agenda and decided to go after Iraq. There are contries out there, such as North Korea and Iran, who actually possess WMD (and in Iran's case had documentable ties to AL Qaeda), yet Bush chose to ignore them and invade a country that had no WMD, had no ties to Al Qaeda and posed no threat to his immediate region, let alone the US.

 

In doing so, Bush squandered the support we had around the world in the aftermath of September 11th. He allowed Osama bin Laden to go free. He allowed Al Qaeda to regroup. Had we kept the forces we needed in Afghanistan instead of diverting them unneccesarily to Iraq, bin Laden might have been captured and Al Qaeda might be decimated.

 

Republicans say that the world is better off without Saddam and so is Iraq, but is it really? Iraq is now a haven for terrorists that it could never have been under Saddam. Al Qaeda was not in iraq before George W. Bush brought them there. Bush has been the best recruitment tool that Al Qaeda could ever hope to have and the front lines of that recruitment effort is in Iraq.

 

George W. Bush has made this country less safe. Reason enough to boot him out of office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too would call the debate and points made pretty even, with Kerry having a small advantage (and the polls seem to reflect that). But one of the BIGGEST factors for me was Bush's attitude, especially when he attacked the moderator and downright interrupted him. That was rude and totally uncalled for, IMO. I understand he was under pressure, but we don't need someone in office who gets that agitated that easily IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I too would call the debate and points made pretty even

 

Actually, Bush made a few points that were complete lies, such as this one:

 

"Non-homeland, non-defense discretionary spending was raising at 15 percent a year when I got into office. And today it's less than 1 percent, because we're working together to try to bring this deficit under control."

 

And yet the Cato Institute called Bush "The Mother of All Big Spenders." Here is the actual discretionary spending for the past 6 administrations from the Congressional Budget Office (so much for "tax-and-spend liberals"):

 

Nixon/Ford: 6.8% per year

 

Carter: 2.0% per year

 

Reagan: -1.3% per year

 

Bush I: 4.0% per year

 

Clinton: 2.5% per year

 

Bush II: 8.2% per year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point taken. I think it actually seemed more even right after the debate when the facts weren't all out. Both parties I know make mistakes or exaggerations sometimes, but Bush's do honestly seem bigger to me. But then, I am admittedly a little biased...though hopefully that isn't influencing my judgement too much here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I do owe Rick Monroe an apology. I was quite "hot-headed" about his statements. But KY TOP was far more persuasive in his remarks.

 

There is no reason to try to insult someone for their opinions. Face to face I would never do that or even consider it. The anonymity here makes it so easy (Rick does not have that choice as he is known to us). I don't think I have ever agreed with Rick's political statements but the only proper way, if you want to, is to respond in a decent way.

 

Then again look at Bewareofnick's response. I used the word Democrat not Democrap. But like most people here he has to use the name Repiglican (and the rest). So I guess that is the way it is. But I don't want to put myself in that category so that is why I apologize to Rick. And I thank KY TOP to put my head straight (but not how I am voting!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>George W. Bush has made this country less safe. Reason enough

>to boot him out of office.

 

I am not sure that the Country is less safe but I agree that Iraq is a major issue, if not the major issue in this race. It is the main reason I expect to vote for Kerry plus I take seriously any change in my freedoms in this country. The Patriot Act (which Congress passed so they share the blame) as administered by Ashcroft and Bush's desire to change the Constitution to deny a group of people rights also play a part in my leanings.

 

My concerns about Kerry deal with all the promises he has made to fix everything and pay for it and "Still" reduce the deficit. I don't think it possible, typical tell them what they want to hear talk from a politican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zipperzone

>>Actually I do owe Rick Monroe an apology. I was quite

>>"hot-headed" about his statements.

>

>That's OK; hot-heads turn me on.

 

Glad to hear that. I've got a hot-head - it dangles between two legs about 7 inches south of my crotch - that I'd love to show you.

 

When the fuck are you two guys coming to Vancouver?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...