1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Possible Bush Assisnation attempt!!!

Discussion in 'The OT' started by juan ellitinez, May 11, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,866
    189
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Agreed.

    The dems, being the overly-sensitive, inclusive, love everyone souls that they are, have to hate someone, and El Presidente seems to be an easy target for their perpetual wrath. Too bad they can't find some way to channel all that wasted energy into a productive activity, like building something resembling a platform for the next national election.

    Go figure. :shrug:
     
  2. deraz

    deraz Daydreamer DBSTalk Gold Club

    722
    0
    Sep 25, 2004
    I thought this was a discussion about two recent security incidents.
     
  3. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Ah yes, memories of how the Republicans LOVED our last president. No hate there. :lol:

    I have not seen any evidence of Bush hate here. I have seen and expressed my concern that either Bush has stated he wants to be kept out of the loop, or others are making the decision of what he needs to know and when he needs to know it. Not the way I want my president to receive information. But it is easier to just excuse the problem by attributing it to "hate" rather than admitting there is a problem. That is the way the last four years have been handled. If you don't recognize there is a problem, there is no problem.
     
  4. mainedish

    mainedish Hall Of Fame

    2,196
    0
    Mar 25, 2003
    You guys look silly . And thanks for picking Howard Dean. That really helped us. :lol:
     
  5. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Glad you think so. Means our plan is working. :lol:
     
  6. SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Hall Of Fame

    5,468
    0
    Jan 15, 2004
    Plan? You mean total self-destruction so that the Rep's can run rough-shod? Boo. Hiss.
     
  7. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Yes, that's the one. You just keep thinking that. Don't even think about the fact that W won the last election with the help of a good percentage of the third of the voters who are not true believers in either party, and who are increasingly disaffected by recent actions of the Republican party. Nope, doesn't matter, don't even think about it.
     
  8. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Ah yes, try diversion once again. What has been said about Bush or the incident at hand that is untrue? Did he NOT state he doesn't read newspapers and instead relies on his advisors? Is it not true when Congress, SCOTUS and the executive were scurrying for cover, his "advisors" or whomever was responsible failed to inform our President, even though he was in the "general vicinity" and could himself possibly been at risk? Are these lies us "Bush-haters" made up?

    I need to reiterate I was never a fan of Bubba Clinton. And now that Barbara has called him "son" and he has addressed George Sr. as "Dad", I feel my intuitions justified. Must be confusing for some of you though.:lol:

    Anyway, HE is the guy YOU love to hate so I'll go there for analogy. What if such a Bizarro inversion of chain of command and accountability had taken place during his regime? Articles of impeachment would have probably already been passed and presented to the Senate. And the "liberal media" would most certainly STILL be harping on it.

    And this is not the first time "the emperor has had no clothes". To follow on that image, "caught with his pants down.":ewww: But disregarding excusable lameness, inevitable to some extent in any political bureaucracy, what policy, procedure or legislation of his has been a smashing success, assuming for a moment you are not in the top 1-5% of income earners? Please tell me, I want to learn! No child left behind? Clear skies? Healthy forests? The "situations" in Afganistan and Iraq? Terri Schiavo legislation? Are these going to be his "legacy"?

    This latest is already a non-story. It's not news because "news", to have legs should be unexpected. And sadly, it's exactly this type of thing we've come to expect from the Junior G-Man. It's BORING!:sleeping: We've seen it before and anyway, the press has a post-it pad of pre-signed excuses. Move on to the runaway bride, car chases and Michael Jackson!

    I'm not about to hang him for riding a bike while his aides try to decide what's pressing enough to inform him about. That's just a symptom of a larger illness. But no one wants to talk about the shrinking dollar, the balance of trade, the deficit or the several hundred dead in Iraq the past two weeks. The topic has been deftly shifted to the immorality of gays and cheerleaders and the "culture of life". I'm just trying to get a word in edgeways here. Something, ANYTHING, to get your attention.:hair::bang
     
  9. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    once again - you illustrate the point by denying the criticism. No, no one is denying the factual events that took place. But the problem seems to be how some (like you have, among others) have used the incident to blame Bush yet again for (apparently) the system he put in place actually working as planned. Once again, he was NOT in harms way. The people who were potentially in harms way were evacuated. The people with the most current and most reliable data were in charge of air defence - choosing when to or not to pull the trigger and shoot down the plane. The whole blooming thing seems to be a success. IF there is any criticism, it is to re-evaluate the evac drill - see if any time can be saved there as well as the definition of the shoot-down zone which I'm sure is highly classified. Should someone have informed the president? Maybe. But you seem to be asserting that the president should somehow "take command" and personally tell the pilot to let go a missile,... or better yet, maybe have some remote control so the pres could personnally pull the trigger. Makes a great show - but not the right thing to do. The people on the spot with the best data and enstrusted with the authority should actually do their job. They did. And you are critical of the president personnaly because it worked. Sorry, but sure sounds like Bush hate to me....
     
  10. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Gee, now that you have explained it so well, it is now clear that we really don't NEED a president. He's just a figurehead. He obviously is not the best person for all the jobs that are needed to run the country, so we can ditch him, and just hire the best people to do the job, leaving out the middleman. :lol:
     
  11. SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Hall Of Fame

    5,468
    0
    Jan 15, 2004
    And now you understand why I think the federal government should NOT be doing welfare, education, social security, etc. :cool:
     
  12. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Not thanks to any quick thinking on George's part!:nono:

    Maybe I need to explain this one. We don't elect Presidents to keep THEM out of harm's way. Their job, and why we elect them, is to keep US(A) out of harm's way!

    On 9/11, an aide whispered in Bush's ear a plane had crashed into a tower of the WTC while he was on a photo-op reading a children's story to a Florida classroom. No one knows if the man told him to "stay put". But that's irrelevant, he DID "stay put". What went through Bush's brain in that interval? Did it occur to politely excuse himself, slowly exit the room, calmly grab the aide by the collar and scream SAY WHAT"? Was he afraid of disappointing the tots? Offending future voters? Was he too courteous to interrupt the hushed, worried huddle in the corridor? Or, and here's my bet, was he waiting for someone to tell him what to do? The only difference in the latest incident is his aides now apparently forego the formality of whispering in his ear.

    But you are correct, he delegates authority. Nothing wrong with that. All Presidents must delegate authority to some extent. But this President seems to have delegated authority to the extent he no longer HAS any authority. Again, he's stated he doesn't read newspapers, and if he bothers to watch the news, we can all guess what network is on his favorites list.:sure: He relies completely on his "trusted advisors" to tell him what's up and from all reports, and his own testimony, he "trusts" those advisors implicitly. We can make jokes about how intelligent, or not, Bush may be. And for the most part, we probably underestimate him. But there's no doubt about how smart, savvy, wily and persuasive his "advisors" are, from Carl Rove to Karen Hughes to Dick Cheney. No dim bulbs there!

    It appears we have a President completely isolated and insulated by a cabal of "trusted advisors", "delegated authority" to the point where where apparently the President's input is deemed unnecessary even in emergency situations, at least until it's been filtered by those same advisors. But all this is dismissed as "style", like we're judging a diving competition.:hair: Bush is nothing but a figurehead. And I think he know's it and is obviously content with it.

    And here's the kicker. Bush famously claims he hasn't made any mistakes, at least none that come easily to mind. Of course not, he's followed all the instructions to the tee! He's been a good figurehead, certainly an obedient one. Have any of his underlings made mistakes? He probably doesn't honestly know. He doesn't see that as his duty. He has delegated that authority to someone else. The "buck" doesn't stop anywhere in this administration, it's constantly being passed.

    BTW, the reason us "Bush-haters" are continually outraged is because these outrageous occurances keep on happening. I for one will keep being outraged. I don't score on "style".
     
  13. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    I know that the "Bush haters" crowd has to keep bringing this up, but there is a reason that they didn't interrupt his activities. It was a CESSNA 152!!!! This is one of the SMALLEST commercially built aircraft in the world. It is also one of the most common training aircraft in the world. More people have learned to fly in a Cessna 152 than just about any other aircraft. I learned to fly in a Cessna 152. I KNEW EXACTLY what had happened as soon as I heard about it. I had NO question in my mind about what happened. It was NOT an under-reaction to skip notifying the president about this. It was an over reaction by someone to order the mass evacuations. There was no need to do so, just as there was no need to notify the president.
     
  14. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    The details of this particular incident are irrelevant. Frankly if the Capital is evacuated for a prank bomb threat or some bureaucrat accidentally set his coffee mug on the "panic button", I believe the President should be notified, IMMEDIATELY!

    We "Bush-haters" see this as just another symptom in a seemingly never-ending string of symptoms, symptoms of a cavalier, imperial, out of touch Presidency bent on instituting their agenda(some would say a radical agenda) at any cost and regardless of legitimate objections or criticism.
     
  15. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    Nice defecation, er, deflection. :D
     
  16. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    I'm deflecting? Really?

    Here is the last paragraph of the post where I introduced the "Cessna incident".
    So if anyone is "deflecting" it would seem to be those who insist on telling us about their flying lessons.:rolleyes:

    There's going to be real emergencies, there's going to false alarms, and there's going to be idiots that cause them. I'm not upset it was almost an hour after the all-clear was declared before Bush was informed. I am concerned about the 15-20 minutes before when he was not consulted or informed, and/or could have chosen to act, or not. And mostly I am troubled this type of delay appears to be standard operating procedure. The President cannot act on anything he is not informed of. And it seems this President is "selectively informed" to put it mildly.

    Therefore, the above original question still stands, "but is he really in charge?":shrug:
     
  17. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    No, I don't. We just have to hire the best people to run these things, not dump them.
     
  18. SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Hall Of Fame

    5,468
    0
    Jan 15, 2004
    But you will NEVER find more than a very tiny minority of the best people in government.

    There's just too many reasons to NOT be there.

    But, of course, that wasn't my point anyway. The feds would STILL be "middlemen", and no matter how efficient they might be, there's always going to be some overhead.
     
  19. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Yes, there will always be overhead. However, if you privatize things like education and Social Security you not only have overhead, but someone wants to make a profit. That increases the overhead. As in private health insurance, it then becomes important to pay out as little as possible to maximize the profit. The health of the customer becomes secondary to profit.
     
  20. SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Hall Of Fame

    5,468
    0
    Jan 15, 2004
    First, I did NOT say privatize it, although I can envision scenarios where that could work.

    What I said was to get the frelling federal govenment out of it.

    Got it yet?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page