Words of import from our president

[JCJD]

Found this here. Enjoy

If I Were a Dictator...
by GEORGE W. BUSH

George W. Bush has stated he'd prefer to be a dictator at least three times, according to BuzzFlash.com:

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.(Governing Magazine 7/9
-- From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"

"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.
-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.
-- Business Week, July 30, 2001


Buzzflash.com thanks a loyal reader for compiling this chronology.
October 29, 2002
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/10/29_Dictator.html

 

[windowshopper]

matata continues to be an ass........cheers to all of you who put it in its place

 

[jenwill]

----------------
On 10/14/2004 11:30:50 PM windowshopper wrote:

matata continues to be an ass........cheers to all of you who put it in its place----------------

Uncalled for, and really pretty incredibly rude of you, windowshopper.

I don't believe it is acceptable, useful, or pertinent to call someone names because they have a different belief than you.

 

[windowshopper]

liberals always name call and insult when attempting to demean their opposition. i should know. I worked as a speechwriter and general operative for 2 democrat senators, president clinton's first campign for president and on many other democrat campaigns. my great uncle was a liberal us supreme court justice. i grew up in that environment so i gravitated to it.... what i saw was that the democrat machine paid pepople to vote )as in here is $5 dollars please go vote for mr. clinton), pandered to the poorest and weakest as well as the richest and most arrogant --those who think they know best how others should live.......Liberals make fun, insult, name call, and often win the war of semantics with just such diatribes (ie matata).

Intelligent people argue merits and basic policy not make fun. you think al gore was any less a mediocre legacy? john kerry is the ULTIMATE political whore. look at his voting record over time. do you think all the multimillionaire dems trying to oust this president care if they are taxed a little more? whats 50% of 20 million if you are gwyneth paltrow or goerge soros. for example: they are all so exercised about improving public schools and routinely oppose school vouchers yet clinton, gore, kerry et al have all sent THEIR children to elite private schools. open your eyes...

 

[jenwill]

----------------
On 10/15/2004 12:15:13 AM windowshopper wrote:

liberals always name call and insult when attempting to demean their opposition. i should know. I worked as a speechwriter and general operative ...----------------

I would generally think that most former speech writers would avoid using the word always when refering to traits of a person or group. You must know that nothing is 'always'. I am a liberal, and I believe that I have not name called in this situation. I believe that from your posts that you have been the one name calling.

I am only answering your post because the use of 'always' or 'never' is one of my pet peeves.

I believe that you are only posting to rile up those of us that do not agree with you, as opposed to your statement of "Intelligent people argue merits and basic policy not make fun"- as you have just spent two posts doing neither of the former, and much of the latter.

 

[windowshopper]

i wasn't addressing you. I was addressing Matata. I was derisive regarding Matata's diatribe........I "always" address the issues.........you have no knowledge of any policy issues so you avoid any discussion of anything requiring thought or facts.

 

[Maria D]

windowshopper, I wonder if the speeches you wrote when you were a "general operative" were as entertaining as your posts.

By the way, 50% of 20 million is always 10 million -- whether you are Gywneth Paltrow, George Soros, Arnold Schwarzenegger or Britney Spears.

 

[windowshopper]

so if you are that income bracket you are very fortunate indeed..........its easy to be genrous with other people's money at that point--

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 10/15/2004 12:15:13 AM windowshopper wrote:

I worked as a speechwriter and general operative for 2 democrat senators, president clinton's first campign for president and on many other democrat campaigns.

I do not want to pry into your personal life for I believe, as you do, that one can argue about issues.

Since you volunteered a great deal about your personal life in your posting however, I am assuming that a question about what you posted is fair game.

The question is: are you a registered Democrat? You allege to have worked for Democrats and on Democratic campaigns yet you use "Democrat" (actually "democrat") rather than "Democratic" as an adjective to describe members of the Democratic party.

I am not disputing the grammatical correctness of the term. It is just that as far as I know the adjectival use of "Democrat" for "Democratic" is quite recent. It was started by some Republicans in an attempt to deprive the Democratic Party of the word "democratic".

Your posting, therefore, made me wonder if you are a Republican.

 

[windowshopper]

hi
i don't allege that I worked for them, I did work for them. Senators Carl Levin, Harris Wofford, Former Pres. Bill Clinton's first campaign, the DNC/ GOTV in the south.

i am no longer a democrat--i apologize-- i assumed it was clear from my post that given my opinions and experiences i couldn't possibly still be one... i am mostly disgusted by both parties but i definitely lean conservative.......

regarding the use of democrat and democratic.........the "democratic" party is wrong. it has long been used incorrectly. The Democrats may or may not be Democratic.............."The Democrats" and "The Republicans" --

 

[Mara]

people always get so fired up about politics..and religion..




the funny thing about this thread is that there are denouncements calling the original post immature and out of line and yet the conversation continues...even if to continue to throw insults around. not that i mind, the whole thing is quite amusing for a quick read.

i did see a funny bumper sticker the other day. it said 'plant a bush back in texas'.




to point out quotes or comments is not the end of the world, folks!

 

[windowshopper]

very good point Mara--but I wouldnt characterize them as just pointing out amusing quotes--its the edgy nastiness that gets old. especially when the diatribes often come from people who are just uninformed partisans slinging mud.......

i personally have yet to see on the jacket lapels of any button-wearers or for sale by any street vendors or bumper stickers that are anti-kerry in the same vicious way the way the dems do it. jokes about bush (with a sexual connotation) and the like...

 

[JCJD]

Ah, I think I see your point, windowshopper. While you find edgy nastiness to be unacceptable in political discussions and debate, direct nastiness is perfectly acceptable!

I'll be sure to keep this in mind in my further discussions.

----------------
On 10/14/2004 11:30:50 PM windowshopper wrote:

matata continues to be an ass........cheers to all of you who put it in its place----------------

Hee-hee-hee!!! OK, I'll stop with my edgy nastiness now! No offense I hope, just trying to make an interesting point.

JCJD

 

[JCJD]

Also, can anybody provide a reasonable hypothetical situation or context in which the original post's quotations do not make the speaker "look silly"? (Sorry to bring you back into a political discussion, questionsRus, but I'm interested to see what people come up with.) My rules for acceptable answers to this question are, 1) it must be a political situation or context, 2) it must be something reasonably spoken by a US president, not necessarily the current one, just any US president, and 3) all submitted tongue-in-cheek contexts must specifically explain why they are appropriate in the context of a presidential speech or response. Perhaps this will occupy us all for a bit!!

 

[windowshopper]

hey look there is a clear bias on the part of main group of posters...that really just amounted to slinging mud and denigrating Pres. Bush with less than academic analysis. My main "goal" was to call out on the table the fact that this was not a thoughtful discussion of issues.........you are all ignoring that main point b/c you all clearly agree with one another...............

 

[windowshopper]

do i smell libertarian??????? simple majority rule sounds very good but........under the surface very dangerous. the masses are the majority and want "stuff" and "your" money..............

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 10/19/2004 8:29:34 AM Feydakin wrote:




I'd love to see a welfare reform that allowed people at the poverty level get 'some' assistance while working.. As it stands, most of the assistance that available requires you to not make any money at all..

Well...I am out of the loop. Since welfare "reform" under Clinton I have not worked in the welfare system. I can assure you that you are wrong about your assertion that people on assistance were unable to make any money at all, though. They were, in fact, *encouraged* to work! Then what they earned was deducted from their welfare checks. I know; I administered it (following State guidelines) in my municipality.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 10/19/2004 8:41:10 AM AGBF wrote:

----------------
On 10/19/2004 8:29:34 AM Feydakin wrote:




I'd love to see a welfare reform that allowed people at the poverty level get 'some' assistance while working.. As it stands, most of the assistance that available requires you to not make any money at all..

Well...I am out of the loop. Since welfare 'reform' under Clinton I have not worked in the welfare system. I can assure you that you are wrong about your assertion that people on assistance were unable to make any money at all, though. They were, in fact, *encouraged* to work! Then what they earned was deducted from their welfare checks. I know; I administered it (following State guidelines) in my municipality.

.................................................

Ah Deb, the money they earned was deducted from their welfare checks? How does that encourage people to work.

If I read what you wrote correctly....

I get a welfare check for $100.00 if I do no work.

If I work, my work check is for $60.00. My welfare check is then ammended to $40.00.

So, I do nothing I get $100.00. I work I get $100.00.
Where's the financial encouragement.

And, I'm with Feydakin. Just leave me alone. (edited to add - not you Deb)

----------------

 

[AGBF]

F&I,

You should know by now that I can't leave you alone, so that even if you *had* meant me it wouldn't have done you any good .

I see you caught the problem with working on welfare. Families were also not allowed to assist welfare recipients. I mean they *COULD*, but any money they gave was deducted from the welfare check. They *were* allowed to buy goods and services for family members, however. Once I had a pregnant woman whose husband had thrown her down a flight of stairs apply for welfare so that she didn't have to live with the guy. Her family gave her a baby shower. I warned her to make sure no one gave her money. They *were* allowed to give her baby clothes, though. My problem was that I was considered a town official and I didn't want any of these poor women telling me they had received a gift of money because then I would have been honor bound to deduct it from their checks. (By the way, the checks were for $444 for a mother and child to live in a town where rent was $600 a month for the smallest and worst apartment.)

Deb