Political: Bushisms (Including a brand new one)

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
#4 & #5 are words that the President spoke--and he did, saw him right there saying it--that disgusted me that the President of my own nation could be so indifferent to the needs and concerns of his people. The first, when asked about the war on terror, he responds with some general comment about all nations needing to fight terror, and then says, "Now watch this drive!" with an enormous grin on his face. I, personally, found that offensive. Granted, there are those who can (and likely will) say that he was playing golf, cut him a break, he was asked that out-of-turn, but you know what? It is well within his power to avoid the press on a golf course. No one sprung that on him. It appeared as though he knew he had to make a talking point, he did it, now lets get back to what's truly important--my golf game!

The last one is in regards to a speech he was giving, apparently to a group of wealthy people (unfortunately, I can't recall where it was given) where he says "some call you the elite. I call you my base." Again, it just sickened me to hear those words out of the mouth of this country's president; we're supposed to believe that he's working hard for the unemployed, the uninsured, the underpriveleged, when he, himself, says he considers the rich, the elite, his "base"?
BedKnobbery, I would honestly like to know if you have the same feeling about these clips, knowing now that the first was not talking about the war on terror and the second was a self-jab at a charitable fundraiser when he wasn't president.

This is the problem with this movie--people say they can distinguish the propaganda, blah, blah, blah. But it's incredibly hard to do that with the way it's edited. I think some people resist that idea because they don't want to feel like they were misled and couldn't spot it. Well, unless you've seen the entire clip or recognize the context, there's just no way you can do that. I don't think it's right to do that to people and I really don't think it's right to do that to people at the expense of the people shown in the movie.
 
To answer your question, kbevrina, yes & no. They change specifically how I feel about those particular quotes, but not my general sense and belief that Bush is more concerned about maintaining the status quo for the wealthy than he is with the common man citizen of this country. Which is probably why those quotes stood out to me in the first place; they spoke to that part of me that already believes this to be true.

And knightpass, I would disagree that you don't need to see it (the effects of war)--I think every adult does. I, too, "knew" the effects of war, but "knowing" it and being confronted face-on with it are two entirely different things. Believe me. I'd have said what you said before I saw what I saw.

And KBeverina, I don't know that I necessarily agree with your stance on the footage used; regarding the war footage specifically, people appear on the news all the time against their will and without permission.....and regarding the interviews with the soldiers in the VA, they were able to speak for themselves and if they didn't wish to appear on camera, could've chosen not to.
 
Originally posted by BedKnobbery2


And knightpass, I would disagree that you don't need to see it (the effects of war)--I think every adult does. I, too, "knew" the effects of war, but "knowing" it and being confronted face-on with it are two entirely different things. Believe me. I'd have said what you said before I saw what I saw.

I completely agree that seeing it on the screen is far more effective than just knowing about it (and our soldiers experiencing it first hand is far more intense than seeing it on screen). I agree that those are two different things. I've never said different. I was just pointing out that I don't need to see it onscreen to know that it is happening.
 
Originally posted by knightpass
My real DIS name????

***scratching head***

What do you mean?

Is my "real name" supposed to be Mickey Mouse or something? I don't understand.

Yeah, like whatever......:eek:

I read your comments about the Moore movie. Having not seen the movie, aren't you basically just parroting the opposing sides propoganda that you have read? How smart is that?:confused:

Did you also know that this film is the all time highest grossing film for a documentary so far? It's also being nominated for some type of Canne film award?

What do you think about it makes it so popular if it is all propoganda? Is the whole world brainwashed? or is it you, my friend?;)
 

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
To answer your question, kbevrina, yes & no. They change specifically how I feel about those particular quotes, but not my general sense and belief that Bush is more concerned about maintaining the status quo for the wealthy than he is with the common man citizen of this country. Which is probably why those quotes stood out to me in the first place; they spoke to that part of me that already believes this to be true.
Okay, I get that. But can you see why people find it objectionable? It's not because Bush is criticized. It's that Michael Moore is intentionally misleading. When the movie was first being discussed here, a lot of people posted about those two scenes with similar comments to yours. Clearly, that's what Michael Moore wanted people to think, even though that's the context of what happened. But, to my knowledge, you're the only one who has said that it changes the way you see those quotes.

And KBeverina, I don't know that I necessarily agree with your stance on the footage used; regarding the war footage specifically, people appear on the news all the time against their will and without permission.....and regarding the interviews with the soldiers in the VA, they were able to speak for themselves and if they didn't wish to appear on camera, could've chosen not to.
I think it depends on the situation. If they're filming war footage, no I don't think they should have to get specific permission.

But I do think they have an ethical obligation to show it in context and not intentionally distort it. I don't think it's right to make people think those soldiers would desecrate a dead Iraqi. If that was one of your relatives being made to look like a complete jerk when he wasn't, I'm guessing that would make you mad.

As for the interviews, since I don't know the contractual specifics between the family and NBC, I can't say for sure whether or not it was illegal what Michael Moore did. I think it was unethical at best.

Those soldiers were giving interviews to Dateline. That's what they agreed to. They didn't have the opportunity to choose not appear in Michael Moore's movie. He took their interviews with Dateline and stuck them in his movie.

As for the funeral footage--this wasn't in the public domain. The families don't even know how he got it. Whether that's legally right or wrong is beside the point--I personally think that's ethically wrong to do that without the family's permission. Particularly when he's putting out there that he's so very concerned for the soldiers and their families.
 
Another Bush doozie :)

From the DU site:

Back in 2000, George W. Bush used rising gas prices as a campaign issue. He said, "I think the president ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say, 'We expect you to open your spigots.' … The president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." Meanwhile, spokesman Scott McClellan was telling reporters that rising gas prices were an example of "failed leadership." Well guess what? Now that oil is more expensive than it's ever been, it's suddenly somebody else's fault - specifically, John Kerry and John Edwards. Whuh? How did that happen? At a campaign event last week, Dick Cheney "blamed his Democratic opponents and their opposition to the Bush administration's energy policies" for rising gas prices, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Speaking of flip flops :rotfl:
 
And here's another recent one...Apparently, in order to get tickets to see Vice President Cheney at a recent rally, you had to sign a paper endorsing George Bush. Unfortunately, the form looks like Bush himself wrote it, as you are asked to endorse him for "reelection of the United States." :rotfl: Here's the form:

165_herby.jpg
 
The sad part is, the Bush team has made those "loyalty oaths" a standard operating procedure, now...You don't get in without signing one. In other words, while people like Rush "Lillbilly Heroin" Limbaugh are slamming Kerry for having to shout down protesters, the Bush / Cheney campaign have made dissent anathema.

But hey...I guess that's a good way to appeal to undecided voters, huh ? :rotfl:
 
Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
Yeah, like whatever......:eek:

STILL confused. If this isnt my DIS name, then what is it? Oh. let me guess. You made a baseless accusation against me, and you find yourself unable to back it up.

I read your comments about the Moore movie. Having not seen the movie, aren't you basically just parroting the opposing sides propoganda that you have read? How smart is that?:confused:

The "other side" seems to provide me with info on Moore's movie which I find very interesting. It's not as if the "other side" said just something vague like "This film is lousy", or anything like that. It's that they take a scene, describe it, and disect it, pointing out how it was twisted in editing, and/or how Moore lied.

Did you also know that this film is the all time highest grossing film for a documentary so far?

Yes I do know that. And didd you know that Titanic is one of the highest grossing movies of all time depite the fact that it's a lousy film (IMHO)? Even junk can sometimes hit the jackpot at the box office.

It's also being nominated for some type of Canne film award?

Didnt he win that Cannes thing already? The French awarding an anti-Bush film. Big shock.

What do you think about it makes it so popular if it is all propoganda? Is the whole world brainwashed? or is it you, my friend?;)

NO ONE goes INTO a movie theater brainwashed. Most of whom went to see it, already had their forgone conclusions.

What makes it so popular is that the enormous majority of those who went to see it are those who already agree with Moore. He's preaching to the converted. Those who do not agree with Moore went to see it to see what all the fuss was about. Dont forget the tons of free publicity this movie got.

A Los Angeles Times poll of likely voters published on Friday showed that Fahrenheit is drawing an overwhelmingly Democratic audience and that few Republicans who have seen the movie appear to have been swayed.

The findings support the contention of conservative critics that in terms of its political influence, Fahrenheit 9/11 is unlikely to go beyond preaching to the Democratic faithful.

Just 9 per cent of 1529 registered voters surveyed nationwide July 17-21 had seen the film, which lambastes President George W. Bush for his response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on America and his reasons for going to war in Iraq, the Times said.

Of those who had seen the movie, 78 per cent identified themselves as Democrats, 9 per cent as political independents and 6 per cent as Republicans, the Times said. Ninety seven per cent said they were planning to vote for presumed Democratic nominee John Kerry.

In addition, 79 per cent of those who had seen Moore's film said it would not change how they vote in November, though 18 per cent said it made them more likely to vote against Bush and 3 per cent said it bolstered their resolve to vote for the president, the newspaper said.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2982167a1860,00.html
 
Originally posted by knightpass
STILL confused. If this isnt my DIS name, then what is it? Oh. let me guess. You made a baseless accusation against me, and you find yourself unable to back it up.





Let me guess, you made up a new identity so you could insult women on the DIS? I could care less. I totally lost interest in anything you have to say.

WVrevy-love the term "Lillbilly Heroin" Limbaugh thats hilarious!:eek: :Pinkbounc
 
Just wanted to congratulate Kbev for earning her own thread over at the DUMB.

Now ignore them, ok? :teeth:
 
Originally posted by kbeverina
I looked at the sites, downloaded the video, and timed it while I watched it--4 minutes and 40 seconds from the time that Andrew Card told the president to the time he said thank you and the reporters were asked to leave the room.

The kids were in the middle of reading the story to him when he was told, he allowed them to finish reading, made a few comments on how well they did, thanked them and it was over.

Huh..........they weren't reading the book when he was told "America is under attack". There was a little pause and then they started reading the book.

Originally posted by kbeverina
IIn the sites you listed, it was said that Ari Fleischer was in the back of the room and held up a sign written on the back of a legal pad that told him not to say anything yet. At the end, the press was ushered out before he was taken to the holding room, rather than just taking him to the holding room right away. This indicates he was supposed to stay put before going anywhere.

Why the hell is a press secretary telling the President of the United States what he has to do? Who's running the show?

Originally posted by kbeverina
Another interesting thing about those sites--reports of possible assassination attempts that morning? Hadn't heard that before. If true, that could explain why secret service would need extra time to move him from one place to another. Because, particularly in situations like this, the president doesn't have control over his movements--that's under the control of his security.

The President has as much control as he wants to have. Just like when he was governor of Texas, George Bush needs someone to tell him what to do.

Originally posted by kbeverina
Your sites just really bolster the speculation that he didn't sit there for 7 minutes and that his staff told him to stay where he was.

Every eyewitness report puts Bush being told "America is under attack" somewhere between 9:05 and 9:07. Those same eyewitness reports put him as leaving between 5 to 7 minutes later.

Originally posted by kbeverina
Again, hindsight and a different sentiment. There would never have been acceptance of shooting down commercial airplanes at that time. On this board, people were upset for others suggesting it. When there was a report that the flight was shot down over PA, people on this board were telling others they were nuts. People were angry at the idea that the administration would order a plane shot down.

The 9/11 Commission reported that Cheney did order planes to be shot down. It appears that order never went anywhere.
 
Originally posted by knightpass
188 posts and you don't read there?

188 posts? What are you babbling about. And, no I don't read there.

Originally posted by knightpass
Sorry, he...I mean she, I mean he....I didn't realize that "ThAnswr" is feminine.

That's why you should do your homework first before making assumptions. ThAnswr may not be feminine, but that's who I am.


Originally posted by knightpass
I promise I won't be nearly as condescending as you.

A new definition of condescending is pointing out 2 glaring errors in one's first post.

Okay.........mea culpa.
 
Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
I wonder if this is the kind of stuff that everyone is mad about on here today?:confused:

We like The Answr, KBev, and FIK. It shouldn't matter to you what gender they are. Or whatever it is that made you afraid to address them with your real DIS name.:eek:

Thank you.
 
Originally posted by wvrevy
Another Bush doozie :)

From the DU site:

Back in 2000, George W. Bush used rising gas prices as a campaign issue. He said, "I think the president ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say, 'We expect you to open your spigots.' … The president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." Meanwhile, spokesman Scott McClellan was telling reporters that rising gas prices were an example of "failed leadership." Well guess what? Now that oil is more expensive than it's ever been, it's suddenly somebody else's fault - specifically, John Kerry and John Edwards. Whuh? How did that happen? At a campaign event last week, Dick Cheney "blamed his Democratic opponents and their opposition to the Bush administration's energy policies" for rising gas prices, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Speaking of flip flops :rotfl:
I don't get this. Wasn't Bush being criticized recently because he did ask Saudi Arabia to increase production and get the prices down? Weren't people saying he did that for political purposes in an election year? Now you're showing that he's always said that he would do that? Isn't his objection to Kerry and Edwards regarding domestic drilling? I'm not getting how this is a flip flop.

But that is one adorable little girl--I'd have that picture poster size in my house, she looks so sweet.
 
Originally posted by wvrevy
The sad part is, the Bush team has made those "loyalty oaths" a standard operating procedure, now...You don't get in without signing one. In other words, while people like Rush "Lillbilly Heroin" Limbaugh are slamming Kerry for having to shout down protesters, the Bush / Cheney campaign have made dissent anathema.

But hey...I guess that's a good way to appeal to undecided voters, huh ? :rotfl:
I hadn't heard about this, so I don't know what its purpose is.

If it's some kind of Fred Flintstone, woolly mammoth lodge secret pledge, well, that's just dumb.

The last line makes it seem like it's supposed to be a release form to allow them to use your name that you're a supporter--the oath above just clarifying that you fully understand what they're using your name for. That's just a guess, it makes the most sense to me.
 
Originally posted by Teejay32
Just wanted to congratulate Kbev for earning her own thread over at the DUMB.
Isn't it exciting, Teejay? Not as exciting as getting an award at Cannes, but still a thrill.
 
Originally posted by ThAnswr
Huh..........they weren't reading the book when he was told "America is under attack". There was a little pause and then they started reading the book.
I checked it out again to make sure--the teacher was telling them to open up their books before Andrew Card came in the room. They had started the lesson. You can clearly see Bush is looking at the back of the room, not looking at the book. Seems pretty clear he was getting info from his staff about what to do.

Why the hell is a press secretary telling the President of the United States what he has to do? Who's running the show?
That's part of the press secretary's job.

The President has as much control as he wants to have.
That's just not true. A president has a working relationship with his security. Even upon boarding the plane, he wanted to head back to DC, but deferred to the Secret Service who didn't feel it was secure. They are the ones controlling the scene. Now you're just throwing stuff out there. I read an article recently that mentioned Kerry getting his briefings over secure lines provided by the Secret Service. If they tell him he needs to do something or go somewhere or not go somewhere for security reasons, I would hope he would listen. That's their job and they know what they're doing. If you've ever seen a presidential security detail, you know that everything is extremely choreographed.

Every eyewitness report puts Bush being told "America is under attack" somewhere between 9:05 and 9:07. Those same eyewitness reports put him as leaving between 5 to 7 minutes later.
Listen, you posted the video. I watched it. He ended the event a little over 4 and a half minutes after Andrew Card came in the room. He allowed the teacher to finish the story, he thanked the kids and that was it. In the meantime, according to the principal, there was a lot going on in the classroom, and, according to your links, he was told by Ari Fleischer not to say anything yet.

Now, since we have the proof on video, you're moving on to a different argument--he may have walked out of the classroom 7 minutes later, but that's not how long he sat there reading a story with the kids, as alleged by Michael Moore. The room was cleared while he informed the principal what was going on before he left for the holding room--also shown in your video. Once he got in the holding room, he conferenced with advisors and had a briefing with the congressmen at the event, as well as worked on a statement to the nation.

The 9/11 Commission reported that Cheney did order planes to be shot down. It appears that order never went anywhere.
Because the plane had already crashed. In fact, many thought it had been shot down and it took hours to establish that it had actually crashed. If the plane had gotten closer, it probably would have been shot down, and then we'd be dealing with the hate over that, too.

I pulled some quotes from the archived thread that was posted a few weeks ago:
What do you mean military? What are they going to do, shoot down a civilian plane? This is tragic, but let's not overreact."
There's nothing the military can do over heavily populated areas like New York City. Imagine what would happen if a jumbo jet was shot down over the city?"
Would the military shoot down a hijacked jet?"

You make the implication that had Bush walked out of that classroom 5 minutes earlier than what he did, the plane may not have crashed into the Pentagon. By the time the planes got there from Langley, how many people would have been spared by shooting it down over Northern Virginia? Or what if there would be more deaths--what if it was shot down over a school? I mean, you make it seem so simple--he could have walked out that instant and ordered planes be shot down and then the Pentagon might not have happened.

But the Pentagon would have happened no matter what. They had to decide what guidelines the pilots would have, what measures would be taken before the plane was shot down, etc. They weren't going to just shoot it down on sight. And would we really want it any other way?
 















Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top