124 Reasons

[Rat Faced]

Oh i dont know...thats only 13 points out of the 124.

I accepted 2 without reservation, or need to look anything up.

There are a lot of "appointed"...easily proven/disproven.

Lot of "Budget" points...again, easily proven/disproven.


j2k4 accepts the Library cut, however hasnt justified it with a citing what this is in %...Inflation here is running at about 2%, so a freeze is a "cut" in real terms. 2-3% cut can be called "efficiancy savings", any more and its a cut..pure and simple.

Efficiancy can only come through year on year cuts...not a big one off

[clocker]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@7 July 2003 - 13:55
Oh i dont know...thats only 13 points out of the 124.

I accepted 2 without reservation, or need to look anything up.

There are a lot of "appointed"...easily proven/disproven.

Lot of "Budget" points...again, easily proven/disproven.


j2k4 accepts the Library cut, however hasnt justified it with a citing what this is in %...Inflation here is running at about 2%, so a freeze is a "cut" in real terms. 2-3% cut can be called "efficiancy savings", any more and its a cut..pure and simple.

Efficiancy can only come through year on year cuts...not a big one off

Rat,

The problem with this list is that I'm positive that it's being taken at absolute face value.

The budget reductions are a good case in point( as j2 as already pointed out).
Just saying that the budget for libraries has been cut by x million dollars doesn't really give much of a picture of the real world impact of that cut. Maybe it ends a program to distribute free Harry Potter books to the children of San Diego. I don't know and neither do you.

Several of the appointees were described as "unindicted co-conspirators". Well "unindicted" means "not charged" which equals "not guilty of anything provable", doesn't it? In the context of this list, "unindicted" is used to imply guilt, but in another thread the US is being castigated for the way it's treating "unindicted"( read: innocent until proven guilty) foreign nationals. Seems a bit of a double standard.

Also, when it comes to US legislation, you must be very careful to read way deeper than the title of the proposal. "The Clean Air Act" could very easily have been drafted by the reps for the lead mining industry and not be at all beneficial to clean air as we know it. Are you familiar with the actual intent of any of the bills that Bush is blamed for killing?
Me neither.

I have no doubt that some of the 124 points are true and fairly represented.
I also have no doubt that some are sheer nonsense.

Why then, would a sincere and honest critic allow his position to be weakened by the inclusion of so many easily provable half-truths?

[DarkBlizzard]

Originally posted by Lamsey+7 July 2003 - 06:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lamsey @ 7 July 2003 - 06:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by j2k4@7 July 2003 - 12:32
<!--QuoteBegin-Lamsey

@7 July 2003 - 06:21
The most important charge is that the man is hopelessly out of his depth and therefore wholly unsuited to his current job.

In my opinion, that charge at least is irrefutable.

You are entitled to your opinion, Liam, but I suspect for the reasoning behind the opinion you would probably refer to a list such as Hypoluxa&#39;s.

As a mod, how do you view a post such as this, which is a cut and paste, and which also precludes an equally comprehensive reply by virtue of it&#39;s....ah... comprehensiveness?

I haven&#39;t been able to find a "cut and paste" reply.

My reasoning is based on the fact that the man is way too thick to be the most powerful man in the world - that and the facts that he has no diplomatic sense and that I find his casual disregard for human life horrifying.


And who needs to cut-and-paste? You could come up with your own list [/b][/quote]
If Bush has no diplomatic sense then Iran, Palistine, North Korea, and a few other countries would have US Soldiers attacking them and Bombs dropping every day over there capitals.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@7 July 2003 - 14:40
The challenge was to Prove 10%

Rat-

As re: the Kyoto Agreement:

Clinton signed it in 1997, but somehow was in no rush, nor made any real attempt to get our Senate to ratify it (they would not have done this, anyway), which would have been necessary for it&#39;s strictures to be put into effect-Bush thought the agreement unfair to U.S. industry, and so withdrew from it.

Have you noticed Japan has done the same?

As to the rest of Hypoluxa&#39;s list, many of his "reasons" are of a nature which could only be defined as having a partisan flavor, and, as such, are no more than complaints such as you might have had against, say, Mrs. Thatcher; i.e., "Mrs. Thatcher hasn&#39;t got a heart", could be answered by merely saying, "What of it?"

So, as my challenge of 10% is rather easily met, it is likewise rather easily dismissed.

[Lamsey]

Originally posted by DarkBlizzard@8 July 2003 - 02:14
If Bush has no diplomatic sense then Iran, Palistine, North Korea, and a few other countries would have US Soldiers attacking them and Bombs dropping every day over there capitals.

Why? There is no obvious benefit to the US from attacking these countries, whereas the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were fought purely to defend American interests.


Let me give you one example of Bush&#39;s lack of diplomatic sense:

It is best, when having your picture taken shaking hands with someone else, not to shake hands across your body. The body language implies weakness, whereas the man with his arm out to the side depicts a more open, stronger image.

GWB was clearly told this ahead of a recent meeting with Arial Sharon in Israel. When he was standing next to Mr. Sharon for a photo call, Mr. Sharon offered his hand for a handshake. However, it would have required President Bush to shake hands across his own body (the "weak" body-language image).

So what did GWB do? He looked blankly at Mr. Sharon&#39;s hand, walked around to the other side of the man, and then offered his own hand (this time in the open, "strong" body position).

A great way to build up diplomatic relations, don&#39;t you think?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Lamsey@8 July 2003 - 04:11
It is best, when having your picture taken shaking hands with someone else, not to shake hands across your body. The body language implies weakness, whereas the man with his arm out to the side depicts a more open, stronger image.

GWB was clearly told this ahead of a recent meeting with Arial Sharon in Israel. When he was standing next to Mr. Sharon for a photo call, Mr. Sharon offered his hand for a handshake. However, it would have required President Bush to shake hands across his own body (the "weak" body-language image).

So what did GWB do? He looked blankly at Mr. Sharon&#39;s hand, walked around to the other side of the man, and then offered his own hand (this time in the open, "strong" body position).

A great way to build up diplomatic relations, don&#39;t you think?

Definitely indicative of the degree to which he is "out of his depth."

A competent head of state would have been standing in the right place to begin with.

For a rich guy, he sure is "common."

We over here do so dearly wish he had less "Texas swagger" and more of that "Aristocratic Arkansas polish."*

*Gratuitous swipe at the Clinton administration

Boy, if you guys think I&#39;m insufferable now, you better hope we never elect another liberal president.

[Lamsey]

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Lamsey@8 July 2003 - 07:17

Which, Arkansas or Clinton?

"Both" would be accurate.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@8 July 2003 - 06:02


Boy, if you guys think I&#39;m insufferable now, you better hope we never elect another liberal president.

I should imagine that the election of a liberal President would render you mute with apoplexy ( at least for a while).

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker+8 July 2003 - 08:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 8 July 2003 - 08:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@8 July 2003 - 06:02


Boy, if you guys think I&#39;m insufferable now, you better hope we never elect another liberal president.

I should imagine that the election of a liberal President would render you mute with apoplexy ( at least for a while). [/b][/quote]
Good morning, clocker-

I spent eight years being apoplectic; plenty of time to get over the aspect of "muteness".

Although I would abhor another liberal presidency (Hillary looms large in &#39;08), I am perpetually primed for the occasion.