The Teflon President

[DudeAsInCool]

No my comments on the constant negative attacks with no solutions is not gibberish and labels, it was mentioned in the story that this thread linked too and its blantently obvious. Even in your post you concentrated on taking more shots at Bush, and on my post than anything else. Why isnt there a politics forum here filled with solutions from the Democrats on how they would fix all the problems

I would agree with you that 'attack politics' is boring, and by the way, it's not just Kerry. Did you know that the Bush Administration doubled their in-house media stafff under Karl Rove so they can be on message and on the attack.

Yes, I agree you NR that attack politics is boring, and I wish that Kerry would act like a commander and chief and put his plans on the table. Further, I wish Bush would scrap all his ROTFL

As to my own criticisms of the Bush administration, they come from me, as an American citizen, and my comments are not on message from the Kerry camp. There's just so much to criticize with the Bush administration that I hardly know where to begin...

That said, I think it would be far better if we created a BK thread on what policies enacted we would like to see in this country, no matter who is elected President. And I will begin:

1. Health Care. If every other progressive country on this planet has health care for their citizens, and since we are the wealthiest, why can't we?

[Redneck4sure]

Now, after looking at the 2 pics I posted.......who do you want to lead this country into battle?

I think I am going to vote for this guy.

[DudeAsInCool]

I was leaning towards McKain, but this guy ahs got my vote now, Redneck. :)

[DudeAsInCool]

2. End the Death Penalty. In a civilized world, we dont need to adopt barbaric practices.

3. Legalize drugs. Stop funding the underworld and Al Queda. Use the money to help people with their problems, not exacerbate them

4. Fair Taxation. A tax system shouldn't benefit just the upper class, it should be fair to everyone.

5. Everyone should have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Housing, education, opportunity.

6. A true justice system for all. Not just one in which 'if you have more money' you can buy more justice.

7. Freedom of speech. Not whatever is dictated by the FCC, or ClearChannel.

8. True copyright - not what the corporations dictate to the lawmakers.

9. An overhaul of election funding - where individuals, not corporate interests make the laws.

[DudeAsInCool]

Then maybe people should mean what they say, rather than backpedal when someone questions it, and again if they meant it that way all along then why not simply post that in the first place? Its funny that you post that to me right after you make a long post doing just that to my post and there is no real rule on it so does this apply to everyone here and if so then why isnt in the guidelines or is this a "special rule" just for me or anyone else who questions someone on what they post and then try to backpedal?

Well, the truth is, we don't censor here, but we do encourage that people respect each other's posts. If you look closely at my comments, when I agree with you, I mention you by name, and when i dont, I question your comments... And I thought Kooper's comment as borderline in that it seemed personalized, though I dont disagree with his plea for logic--so I quoted his line too

So, you weren't picked on--there are no rules, though we discourage flaming, which you werent--and I would have said the same thing to Redneck if they were his comments. Feel free to post whatever the hell you want....

***

And incidentally, some of my thoughts were critical of Kerry... I dont see any criticism from you on Bush, NR

[DudeAsInCool]

Then maybe people should mean what they say, rather than backpedal when someone questions it, and again if they meant it that way all along then why not simply post that in the first place?

Im not sure what you are specifically referring, too, here. If I find myself wrong, I have no problems admitting it, and will do so if it falls in a certain thread--but for the most part, I dont backpedal on anything...I say what I mean and I believe it

[NullsRevenge]

1. Health Care. If every other progressive country on this planet has health care for their citizens, and since we are the wealthiest, why can't we?

2. End the Death Penalty. In a civilized world, we dont need to adopt barbaric practices.

3. Legalize drugs. Stop funding the underworld and Al Queda. Use the money to help people with their problems, not exacerbate them

4. Fair Taxation. A tax system shouldn't benefit just the upper class, it should be fair to everyone.

5. Everyone should have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Housing, education, opportunity.

6. A true justice system for all. Not just one in which 'if you have more money' you can buy more justice.

7. Freedom of speech. Not whatever is dictated by the FCC, or ClearChannel.

8. True copyright - not what the corporations dictate to the lawmakers.

9. An overhaul of election funding - where individuals, not corporate interests make the laws.

1. It costs too much money, and is up to states not the federal government, personally i dont think that "universal" healthcare is the best solution.

Let me ask you this, if we cant even get Social Security under control since it was started for many years now and if everything the government has been doing has been wrong which takes many years to do. Then what exactly makes you think that the federal government is capable of providing "universal" healthcare that is equal or better in quality now that will not cause taxes to increase out of control for everyone?

Almost all of the other progressive countries in this world all are unitary governments not federal ones which healthcare, and education and etc are reserved powers to the states.

2. Why in a modern world would people comit barbaric acts like murder in the first place?

3. I dont think think the vast majority of people really want that, what makes you think people want weed and all other drugs and abusers around them in public, when they dont even want people who smoke tobacco around them? There are plenty of places for people to get help now, that is not the problem the problem is some people dont want to get help and would rather continue to abuse whatever drug, legalizing would not help them and if anything would make it much cheaper and easier for them to obtain and would just encourage their habit even more.

4. I dont think the that people should be punished for doing things right and being successfull and i dont think its right for government to tell people what they deserve to make and certainly goes against your number 5.

5. Already exists, people just dont take advtange of whats there or are unwilling to do what it takes sometimes. Certainly much more opportunity than anywheres else on the planet.

6. Again it already exists, people might be able to buy better representation but that doesnt mean that they buy their way out of things some lawyers are simply better than others. I dont really see a solution to this one that doesnt go against number 5 either for lawyers since any solution would probably require them to all get a standard pay and rationed out which i dont think they would like but i cant say im against that.

7. Please read the first amendment in the constitution. It says Congress shall create no law.... So companies like Clear Channel can put whatever they want on their radio stations because they are not congress. If anyone's freedom of speech was being imposed on then they should take it court and im sure they would win.

8. Agree but i would put it a different way, i see it more as a small group of compaines trying to use the government to legislate fixes to their problems because they refuse to adapt to the needs of the market/consumer.

9. Election reform was already done a while ago, if more people than interest groups took a more active role then this would not be a issue. I dont think people would support banning all contributions and just giving any canadiate x amounts of tax dollars which is what some countries do either.

[DudeAsInCool]

1.  Health Care.  If every other progressive country on this planet has health care for their citizens, and since we are the wealthiest, why can't we?

2.  End the Death Penalty.  In a civilized world, we dont need to adopt barbaric practices. 

3.  Legalize drugs.   Stop funding the underworld and Al Queda.  Use the money to help people with their problems, not exacerbate them

4.  Fair Taxation.  A tax system shouldn't benefit just the upper class, it should be fair to everyone.

5.  Everyone should have the right to the pursuit of happiness.  Housing, education, opportunity.

6.  A true justice system for all.  Not just one in which 'if you have more money' you can buy more justice.

7.  Freedom of speech. Not whatever is dictated by the FCC, or ClearChannel.

8.  True copyright - not what the corporations dictate to the lawmakers.

9.  An overhaul of election funding - where individuals, not corporate interests make the laws.

1. It costs too much money, and is up to states not the federal government, personally i dont think that "universal" healthcare is the best solution.

Let me ask you this, if we cant even get Social Security under control since it was started for many years now and if everything the government has been doing has been wrong which takes many years to do. Then what exactly makes you think that the federal government is capable of providing "universal" healthcare that is equal or better in quality now that will not cause taxes to increase out of control for everyone?

Almost all of the other progressive countries in this world all are unitary governments not federal ones which healthcare, and education and etc are reserved powers to the states.

2. Why in a modern world would people comit barbaric acts like murder in the first place?

3. I dont think think the vast majority of people really want that, what makes you think people want weed and all other drugs and abusers around them in public, when they dont even want people who smoke tobacco around them? There are plenty of places for people to get help now, that is not the problem the problem is some people dont want to get help and would rather continue to abuse whatever drug, legalizing would not help them and if anything would make it much cheaper and easier for them to obtain and would just encourage their habit even more.

4. I dont think the that people should be punished for doing things right and being successfull and i dont think its right for government to tell people what they deserve to make and certainly goes against your number 5.

5. Already exists, people just dont take advtange of whats there or are unwilling to do what it takes sometimes. Certainly much more opportunity than anywheres else on the planet.

6. Again it already exists, people might be able to buy better representation but that doesnt mean that they buy their way out of things some lawyers are simply better than others. I dont really see a solution to this one that doesnt go against number 5 either for lawyers since any solution would probably require them to all get a standard pay and rationed out which i dont think they would like but i cant say im against that.

7. Please read the first amendment in the constitution. It says Congress shall create no law.... So companies like Clear Channel can put whatever they want on their radio stations because they are not congress. If anyone's freedom of speech was being imposed on then they should take it court and im sure they would win.

8. Agree but i would put it a different way, i see it more as a small group of compaines trying to use the government to legislate fixes to their problems because they refuse to adapt to the needs of the market/consumer.

9. Election reform was already done a while ago, if more people than interest groups took a more active role then this would not be a issue. I dont think people would support banning all contributions and just giving any canadiate x amounts of tax dollars which is what some countries do either.

We agreed on 1.5 things :good job: But the challenge I posed, was put down a group of solutions that we believe in at BK. So you need to list your solutions first! Then we can debate them before putting them up as the BK Platform for a New America :bigsmile:

[Kooperman]

Before this thread gets smothered by rhetorical and philosophical treatises, let me go back to the title of this thread.....nobody ever commented on it. Bush is the Teflon President....for those who don't know, teflon is the no-stick surface used in pots and pans. President Bush has just come off of one of the worst springs any president has had in quite some time, with foreign policy problems, domestic problems involving gas prices, cabinet problems, and image problems for his entire administration. Yet polls indicate he has lost no ground, and some actually have him gaining ground. It seems unlikely, but that's what's happening. One of the reasons is that John Kerry has been so timid about loudly pointing out these issues and stating what his policies would be. A golden opportunity is being missed and Bush is the beneficiary of this. Despite his admisinistration being pummeled on a weekly basis, the Teflon President probably will be back for 4 more years. Yet what happens if the picture gets markedly worse for the Bush administration? What scenarios could develop? If Kerry is the wrong man, what would the Dems do about it?

[DudeAsInCool]

I havent a clue as to why major issues such as the economy, job losses, and problems with war, arent affecting him. I think NR is right that Kerry's constant attack mode isnt winning new converts--he should focus on solutions...

[Redneck4sure]

Koop! You have Bush confused with Clinton. You know......Slick Willie!! He was such a slippery sucker.....nothing stuck. The absolute most dishonest and despicable person in the white house. You liberals...excuse me "damn liberals" don't know a good teflon job when you see it! ;)

[DudeAsInCool]

You liberals...excuse me "damn liberals" don't know a good teflon job when you see it!

We certainly do and will not be Bushwacked!

[Redneck4sure]

:good job:

[Kooperman]

Slick Willie!! He was such a slippery sucker.....nothing stuck. The absolute most dishonest and despicable person in the white house.

If memory serves me correctly, I believe this is the same dimension in which Richard Nixon prowled the White House hallways.....

[Redneck4sure]

Nope. That was tricky Dick. Another fine fellow.

[NullsRevenge]

We agreed on 1.5 things :good job: But the challenge I posed, was put down a group of solutions that we believe in at BK. So you need to list your solutions first! Then we can debate them before putting them up as the BK Platform for a New America :bigsmile:

The "problem" as i see is that people increasely want the federal government to handle things that are probably better off left to the states. Over half your list of things are left to states to handle and probably better off that they do. Because the State is more representative of people in that area than the federal government is and can have things like referendums and let the voters decide on issues. The state governments are typically more flexible and since they have to balance spending every year ensures that they will pay more attention to not waste resources and cut wasteful spending than the federal government too.

Congress should do more to solve the problems and it shouldnt be expected that the President to fix everything now matter who it is, because Congress is more representative of the people.

[DudeAsInCool]

I cant disagree with much of that, NR, but... I think healthcare is a national issue, and if the military can be handed by the federal gov't, certainly things like national healthcare can. Also, I dont know enough about the economics involved for the states to take on more of a burden, as they were pretty strapped.... My general philosophy is 'whatever works, by any means possible, without limitations--that's hard to do if you divide up all the responsibilities between the natl and state govts; and since corporations are acting like govt's and amassing as much power, they have a responsibility to be more involved in the communities they came from than they are today.

[NullsRevenge]

I cant disagree with much of that, NR, but... I think healthcare is a national issue, and if the military can be handed by the federal gov't, certainly things like national healthcare can. Also, I dont know enough about the economics involved for the states to take on more of a burden, as they were pretty strapped.... My general philosophy is 'whatever works, by any means possible, without limitations--that's hard to do if you divide up all the responsibilities between the natl and state govts; and since corporations are acting like govt's and amassing as much power, they have a responsibility to be more involved in the communities they came from than they are today.

If the states cant do it then how is the federal government any different? The money to pay for all these things has to come from somewheres. And there are limitations, to what people want and there are physical or other limitations that makes certain things not feasible like technology, costs, and etc.

Corporations for the most part are active in the community, they hire people from the community, ran by people who live in that community, most provide a service to the community, and alot do give back to charities, schools, youth sports and etc in the community. There are a ton of businesses out there, of course there is going to be a few bad eggs but they arent really representative of them all.

[slum_goddess]

whoa, i wish i'd been around to jump in when this thread began. about the use of the word 'gestapo:' my mother's jewish so according to wotever, that makes me the same (i think it's something about how the dad's religion doesn't count, but not being religious, i have no idea if that's right nor do i care). moving right along, i have no issues w/it (in fact, i agree w/the usage). so OK, that's just me. but when woodward's book was first excerpted, she and i talked on the phone about this--she's not offended in any way either (and she lost her entire family in germany here, during WWII).

someone said something about how whatever happened 30 years ago has no bearing on what's going on now (but can't be arsed to find it). i totally disagree w/that; i'm a firm believer of 'you reap what you sow.'

[slum_goddess]

Health Care.  If every other progressive country on this planet has health care for their citizens, and since we are the wealthiest, why can't we?

cause the US is the land of the free (market) economy? from personal experience, i needed (and was rejected for) Medicaid in NYC cause my health was shot (at that time). what a surprise going for medical services over here (DE): not only were the experiences way more relaxing (no crowds in the waitingrooms, way-modern high-tech equipment and unhurried, caring doctors and nurses) but the bills were just a tiny fraction of what this would've cost in the states (i checked). i'm talking mostly about medication to decrease the enzyme count in my liver but dental services and everything else are reasonably priced (and i don't have DE health insurance). checking around w/nearby friends, they all said the same when comparing NYC doctors and dentists (all apart from those i know in the UK). please keep in mind that when we found out we were moving to germany, i dint wanna go--i hated the entire idea of living here, w/'the enemy.' how wrong i was.

[DudeAsInCool]

Corporations for the most part are active in the community, they hire people from the community, ran by people who live in that community, most provide a service to the community, and alot do give back to charities, schools, youth sports and etc in the community.

It may be a pendulum thing, but I think corportions are less active in the community than they use to be. Certainly there are some that continue to be very active. I was even more impressed recently by what Bill Gates is doing personally outside of Microsoft--I wish other corporate leaders followed his lead...

[Kooperman]

What Happened to Bush's Dream Team?

They used to pretend to get along. Now they don't even bother

By JOHN F. DICKERSON & MATTHEW COOPER

Posted Sunday, May 9, 2004

During Donald Rumsfeld's testimony before the senate Armed Services Committee last week, a few members of the audience shouted down the Secretary of Defense. He took it impassively. But then, he'd had recent experience with heckling, some of it from colleagues within the Administration. They engaged all week in thinly veiled finger pointing over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, and, in a rare move, the White House let it be known that the President had privately rebuked his Defense Secretary for not advising him of the extent of the problem. A senior Administration official said the relationship between the White House and the Pentagon was "in flames." The President, says a Bush adviser, "is legitimately pissed."

For the complete article click here:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040517/wmemo.html

[Wolfie]

A senior Administration official said the relationship between the White House and the Pentagon was "in flames."

Enter the inflamed or should I say flaming Bush.

Poor Rummy.

[Bombardier]

A word of caution

If any flaming is to be done, make sure you spray some of this on yourself to help prevent burns ;)

Edited May 10, 2004 by Bombardier