Bush Administration: Opinions

[Nono]

Machiavellians or Moronics?

Are the Bushistas cynical, conspiratorial, manipulating perpetrators of Realpolitik at its nastiest? Are they a bunch of naive, whacked-out ideologues? Is it possible to consider them as both simultaneously? ... And other knotty questions ...

One could do worse than read the views of Seymour Hersh on this. The interview is verbatim and takes some effort. But it's gotta be a piece of the puzzle.

What are your opinions of the Bush Administration?

Thread title and subject discussion altered by Moderator.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by Nono, Are the Bushistas cynical, conspiratorial, manipulating perpetrators of Realpolitik at its nastiest? Or are they a bunch of naive, whacked-out ideologues? Is it possible to consider them as both simultaneously? ... And other knotty questions ...

Why do those terms discribe exactly how the other side feels about your kind?

[tusaki]

No, I think neither. They "just" view things differently. The only naive thing about 'them' is their limitless nationalism which results in excusism. (no we weren't wrong, we can't be! you must be a lazy treehugging communist hippy who lives of welfare! or you work for the media! or a university! Amerika is strong.. ubluk like strong clan.. clan proud! clan fight! other clan are girlie! we men! real men! look at the size of my .. car!)

[Nono]

Whazzat? Somebody's accusing my kind of Machiavellianism?! Jeez, Dieval, that must explain why we're so influential.

[m5lange1]

Dieval Posted on 09-20-2004 03:17 PM QUOTE (Nono,) Are the Bushistas cynical, conspiratorial, manipulating perpetrators of Realpolitik at its nastiest? Or are they a bunch of naive, whacked-out ideologues? Is it possible to consider them as both simultaneously? ... And other knotty questions ... Why do those terms discribe exactly how the other side feels about your kind?

Simple answer....
Because the followers of the hate mongers who would rather tear this country apart than unite it are the same people on both the left and the right. The only difference is whether they worship Moore or Limbaugh.

[tusaki]

Originally posted by m5lange1, Simple answer.... Because the followers of the hate mongers who would rather tear this country apart than unite it are the same people on both the left and the right. The only difference is whether they worship Moore or Limbaugh.

Amen. Hate mongoring starts with rhetorics, prejudice and mudslinging. stop that and you've set the first step to respect and peace. (Heh, my little 'clan' joke isn't really respectfull either. ;-) please forgive me.)

[Sonart]

Are the Bushistas cynical, conspiratorial, manipulating perpetrators of Realpolitik at its nastiest? Or are they a bunch of naive, whacked-out ideologues?

My guess is that they're a bunch of naive, whacked-out ideologues in pursuit of the cynical, conspiratorial, manipulative perpetration of Realpolitik at its nastiest.

The results speak for themselves.

[RickSp]

Thanks for the Seymour Hersh interview. Well worth reading.

I have no doubt that some on this list, if they were around, would de dismissing Hersh's reporting on the Mei Lai masacre the way they dismiss his reporting on Abu Ghraib. History has proven Hersh right before. I have no doubt the same will happen again.

Regrettably our government keeps making the same tragic mistakes over and over again. Our young men and women keep paying the price of arrogance and stupidity.

[Technosoul]

Bush is a cult philosophy, and the liberal intellectral perspective is a cultural philosophy, that is the only difference I noted.

Yo ho, one less for the gibbler.

Technosoul.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Dieval,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dieval,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Nono, Are the Bushistas cynical, conspiratorial, manipulating perpetrators of Realpolitik at its nastiest? Or are they a bunch of naive, whacked-out ideologues? Is it possible to consider them as both simultaneously? ... And other knotty questions ...

Why do those terms discribe exactly how the other side feels about your kind?[/b][/quote]

I think you answered your own question. In plain english it's bullshit on BOTH sides, driven by fear (not hate) of the percieved damage the other side can do. The fear is not generated by you or I, but of the talk radio types and the political wannabes who write their biased sludge. Limbaugh, Gallagher, Moore and the rest are making a killing by sucking the gullible in and probably laughing about it all the way to the Swiss bank.

We are being had, by both sides.

[m5lange1]

Actually we agree Scrib. I think "hate" is almost always born of fear. Therefor the "fear" is just a tool they use to fan the flame of hate and thus increase their bank accounts.

[Nono]

Kyran has been wielding his editor's hatchet again.

Yes, this is thread is opinionated. What percentage are not? So start editing them all, Kyran, if you don't want to appear inconsistent.

And this opinionated thread is based on the premise (my opinion) that Bush and his gang must be either diabolically dumb (which is the general view worldwide, take my word for it) or touchingly naive in a thoroughly Machiavellian way.

I thought the Hersh piece might contribute to discussion of the topic.

If you don't agree, Kyran, post a rebuttal rather than abusing your mod status.

Originally posted by Reuters from yesterday Britain's ambassador to Italy has called President Bush "the best recruiting sergeant" for al Qaeda, Italian media reported Monday. (...) The veteran ambassador, Sir Ivor Roberts, was quoted as telling an annual Anglo-Italian gathering in Tuscany: "If anyone is ready to celebrate the eventual re-election of Bush, it's al Qaeda."

Guess he'll be getting a little note from Tony in his inbox about opining, eh Kyran?

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Nono, Machiavellians or Moronics? Are the Bushistas cynical, conspiratorial, manipulating perpetrators of Realpolitik at its nastiest? Are they a bunch of naive, whacked-out ideologues? Is it possible to consider them as both simultaneously? ... And other knotty questions ... What are your opinions of the Bush Administration?

#1
Hmmmm --- That "vocabulary" could fill out a lot of ***
#2
I think that Bush administration is that "smart" or that "stupid".
Upcoming months will give the correct asnwers.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Rainbow, #2 I think that Bush administration is that "smart" or that "stupid". Upcoming months will give the correct asnwers.

I'm still not entirely sure what "Bushistas" are. Bush fans, supporters, government cronies, a drink at Starbucks?

My worry is that what "smart" has been paraded endlessly and overblown already (election years will do that) and the "stupid" may take years to be brought to light, right around the time the 2012 presidential election when it is discovered that one of the candidates undertipped a waiter 30 years ago. Stupid is immortal unless killed in its infancy, and we may have already waited too long.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by Nono, Kyran has been wielding his editor's hatchet again. Yes, this is thread is opinionated. What percentage are not? So start editing them all, Kyran, if you don't want to appear inconsistent.

Kyran pulled the same crap with one of my threads too. What was the title originally? You can probably get Sean to reverse it. Sean fixed mine. Kyran also added a sub-topic bullsh!t to mine, that didnt get changed back. I think hes off his meds or his gfriend is dissing him today.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Originally posted by Kyran Bush Administration: Opinions

According to Etiquette:

No Vague Titles Titles for topics are meant to give a reader an idea of what to expect, when they enter into a topic. Titles that sound like the tabloids, or that don't warn about graphic images, are harmful to the debate environment here.

Kyran shouldnt you lead by example? 1st its the insults, And now posting vague topic titles in direct violation of Etiquette. Tsk, Tsk. :rolleyes:

[Nono]

Following the vasectomy, Kyran sent me the following message explaining why he had changed the title:

1. The topic is Bushistas (Bush administration if I'm not mistaken) 2. The discussion only asked for opinions. I decided to salvage the thread because it follows the rules; it just didn't explicitly state that it's an open discussion. There's nothing in the rules that says you can't have an all out opinion thread, like a general discussion, within the politics section about political figures.

As I write this, the thread topping the list is giuliano's entitled "homeland security gone mad: ted kennedy grounded". It consists entirely of a media piece -- no invitation to debate. Yet it is, naturally, followed by debate.

Mine offered the Hersh piece as fuel for -- guess what, Kyran? -- debate.
But Mistah Kyran, him doan lak dem critters doan sho no respek fo de presiden.

I have sent Sean the following message:

Could you either explain why the etiquette requires the title "Machiavellians or Moronics" to be changed to "Replying to Bush Administration: Opinions", or restore the original title?

[Rainbow]

What should we "debate" now :
#1
This thread's issue ?
#2
Private messages between Nono and Kyran ?
:-)))

P.S.
A private message is designed to carry an information exchange between particular persons, only.
That is not so "wise" to post it to the public.

[Nono]

I figured it should be 'published' as a means of seeing whether anyone else follows Kyran's reasoning.

For my money we should go on debating the true nature of the Bushist-- sorry, Kyran -- the administration of President George W. Bush, Esq., even if it's under this extremely vague title "opinions".

[bishop]

overzealous moderators suck. the whole reason why i came here from a previous message board is because of someone who took their position way too seriously.