"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ad5dd90e8ae55ca989691@news.individual.net...
In article <5o-dnQZtuZGmi_HdRVn-ug@comcast.com>,
says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ad4077797374e7398968e@news.individual.net...
In article <3rSdnYFgY_j5FfbdRVn_iw@comcast.com>,
says...
And here Bush accomplished it in just over two with common sense
and
good
policies...
Bush has neither common sense nor the intellect to craft good
policies.
Do you?
Yep. Without any doubt I am far smarter than bush and have a real
education
which I actually earned by dint of my own effort.
But yet, you are not in the White House
Completely irrelevant.
Why? I mean if you can do the job better, I want someone in the white house
who can.
So why aren't you?
It's obviously not a trivial thing for a candidate to
become president. You're using an argument analogous to "If you're smart
why
aren't you rich". It's not necessary for me to conform to your
unrealistic
standards in order to prove myself.
or any position that would create
the policies.
You know nothing about what I've done in terms of policy (aside from what
I
might have told you).
So why are you bitching about them, when you think you could do a better
job
and are not doing it?
You don't know whether I am or not. In fact I'm doing lots of things
about it.
Like what?
But that doesn't necessarily require that I work in the whitehouse or get
elected president.
Well we certainly have incompetant people in the White House, according to
you right?
There are only so many people who can work in the whitehouse
and technically I'm not even old enough to run for president.
My grasp of public policy,
political theory, etc is easily superior to Bush's.
Bush is
the classical "bad guy" manager who tries to bully and intimidate
his
subordinates into line and he considers everyone else on earth his
subordinates.
Can you do a better job?
Yes, of course. There is no doubt that many could.
Then why aren't you?
Because there is not an essential connect between what one can do and what
one
actually does.
<snip>
All I am doing in demonstrating you waste time complaining, whining, and
moaning
But you haven't demonstrated that.
Oh but I have, you don't like it so you refuse to recognize it.
Let me clue you in on something.
I am involved in politics. Been involved for many years.
Another example. I am involved in the largest union in my state, been
involved for a few years.
There is one thing I know for a fact. When you sit in the seat, you get the
complaints.
When you ask for the help, they are no where to be found.
People, such as yourself...and including me too..I am not innocent...will
*****, moan, complain....say they know more and how to do it better.
But do nothing about it. I changed that about myself, when I felt that
union representatives didn't know what they were doing and I ran for a
position and was on an executive board for a while. You know what I
learned? That I didn't know what I was talking about before, that it is
much
different on the other side.
Same goes for our government.
You don't know the answers, neither do I. We can vote and complain but the
bottom line is you can't do the job any better or else you would be there
doing it.
You can't even explain in detail how Clinton achieved getting more jobs.
Something as simple as that, you can't actually explain in full detail.
You forget the fact that we have a congress and a senate. Instead of holding
them responsible, you wish to go right over them and attack the man on top.
YET, when it was Clinton in office I bet you were not willing to do that.
The bottom line is this. It is politics, and I don't care how you try and
sugar coat it. Not being honest enough to admit it isn't my problem, but
your not honest enough to admit it.
Bush is a Republican. That is why you and other liberals attack him so
harshly. Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the Congress.
It drives Liberals absolutely nuts that they lost all that. So much so that
they are digging up dirt in every corner to try and oust Bush. If the
American voters wish to oust him, they will do so. And we will once again
go round and round with the attacks because the tables will be turned. Then
you will be watched to see if you are holding the man in the chair
responsible.
It is funny how you and other liberals say things like, "it happened on his
watch"
When the same thing was applied to Clinton, liberals ducked and ran for
cover. The same ones that are now saying "It happened on his watch"
So you can sugar coat it all you like. I am reading between the lines.
I see someone who can sit back and blame Bush and credit Clinton...but can't
exactly explain how Clinton is to be responsible...OR...how Bush is to be
responsible for all the job losses.
Now, if you wish to explain it great I will be willing to read. Start
another thread and you educate me on how Clinton is
responsible..precisely..and Bush is responsible..precisely.
Don't tell me to go read a book, you think you have the answers..I don't
need a book when we have you on here.
In fact I'm not whining or moaning, nor is
it necessarily the case that complaining about things is a waste of time.
Sometimes complaining serves a useful purpose. I am dialoguing with my
fellow
citizens and that's important. It's far better to complain than merely to
be
apathetic -- almost 50% of the country responds that way by disengaging
from
politics or obsessing about things like sports to the exclusion of serious
issues.
when you think you could be doing a better job and all you do is sit in
a NG
whining about it.
You've got to have a plan before you can implement it. What's wrong with
hashing out a plan? I'm engaging in dialog.
If you think someone else can do a better job, can you explain in
detail
how
their policies are better and why?
You are not my English composition teacher assigning me essays. It is
unreasonable for you to make significant demands on me to explain
every
little
detail to you at length.
You don't like questions, that is too obvious
No, that's not obvious. But I've explained to you, quite correctly, that
it's
easy ask rapid fire questions and demand that people spend all their time
on
you. As the saying goes, any fool can ask questions that even a sage
can't
answer.
It's easy to pepper people with questions and much
harder for them to take the time and energy to respond. If you don't
understand
then then I'm telling you now. You need to get some maturity and
limit
the
scope of your questions.
Oh, I am doing just fine.
No, you're not. Most people would just ignore you and rightly so, because
you
demand that folks drop everything and answer your every query.
Pinning you down is too easy.
But you've done nothing of the sort. You think asking a few questions is
your
only obligation. You fallaciously assume that if someone doesn't waste
time
answering your questions that it's proof that he or she doesn't know the
answer.
What I ought to do is just keep answering your questions with questions of
my
own. Then we'll never get anywhere, but at least you'll see what it's
like to
just spit out questions like a psychotherapist.
You are of course
going to return with
attacks and name calling.
Not all name calling is unjustified. People are not obligated to be
polite to
you. You can't assume that because a person is rude that he or she is
necessarily wrong. Your approach here is overly simplistic and that's not
name
calling.
Also, I don't appreciate the one-way interview
technique you're using. If you demand something from me then how
about
providing something in return.
I can very easily say I don't know how to do their job.
Yes, it is easy to cop out and plead ignorance. I expect that from you,
because
it allows you to get out of the conversation without contributing anything
useful. The fact is that you probably do know relevant things about how
the
president or other public figures should guide policy. But you seem
afraid to
really say what you think.
Their job is a
tough one, they are
required to speak for us.
They might have to make tough decisions, but they work it out the same way
you
or I work things out. They seek information, they ask advice and they
even
<gasp> look for criticism. Actually, it's well known that the Bush
administration doesn't tolerate criticism well, even when it's done
internally
from a "devil's advocate" position. That's a recipe for disaster and they
have
certainly cooked up some major disasters during their tenure.
All I can do is vote or not vote for them.
I didn't like all the things Clinton done, but I also recognize his
service
and he had a tough job.
Clinton screwed up on his own.
That's easy to claim.
If you want to know why I judge Bush the way I
do,
I already know why. Your reasons are no different than any other
liberal.
Sweeping generalization alert. Try not to oversimply things so much.
The only problem is, getting liberals to be honest about their reasons.
Actually it sounds like you just refuse to accept the reasons liberals
give you
until you can manipulate it to say what you wanted to hear all along.
which again can involve long and complex explanations, then why don't
you
offer some of your own rationales about Kerry or Clinton, or Gore,
etc?
Easy, I don't trust Kerry because he flip flops
They you obviously know nothing about Kerry. The "flip flop" stuff is
just
retreated rhetoric that republicans have been using on every candidate.
Again,
it appears to appeal to you because it's a simplistic charge that doesn't
really
require you to know what you're talking about. Bush has easily flip
flopped as
much as Kerry, only Bush has had a much shorter political career. Every
so
often Bush takes stubborn stand in defiance of all evidence and reason --
that
get's spun as "sticking to principles".
too much, he has casturated
vets,
You're totally full of *****. I've met Kerry several times and worked with
his
campaign and he absolutely cares about giving vets the benefits they
deserve.
But he knows that war is not a glorious thing. He doesn't treat war as a
re-
election ploy. He wants to minimize it and he wants to be sure that war
is both
justified and a last resort. That way vets don't end up coming back
crippled or
dead. Bush doesn't care about vets because he doesn't care about anybody.
Thats funny, as a vet myself, I am doing fine..and other vets I know are
doing just fine.
At
most he considers veterans to be a voting block, though he's done a great
deal
to harm relations with that voting block.
Like what?
he will raise taxes.
He has said that we wants tax relief for the middle class and small
businesses.
The very richest can afford to pay slightly higher taxes and their refusal
to do
so shows that they are neither patriots, nor socially responsible. For
that
matter, if you're not willing to pay your fair share of taxes then you're
a
moocher and a thief, because you expect government to give you services
without
paying for it.
Clinton screwed himself
You really don't know anything about Clinton, do you?
Hmmm, getting defensive..:o)
Gore talked down to people and acted like he was too smart for people.
Translation: You have an inferiority complex.
Oh, so I don't like something about one of your boys and that isn't
acceptable to you..:o)
Bush also has angered me as well. His tax cuts, were not what he tried
to
tell people.
They were essentially tax bribes from the public treasury to the pockets
of the
wealthiest Americans.
Show us how the money went into their pockets. Precisely
Although I do think they did spur some of the growth in our economy, I
think
he went too far.
He went too far with the excessive tax cuts for his cronies and not far
enough
in helping the majority of Americans.
I want you to show us how they benefited the rich.
I agree with the arguments that during a recession you have to act
responsibly and tax cuts...too much, isn't
always the right way to go. I think his first round was enough, his
second
I think he should have waited.
He should have made the first round smaller and used the money for other
financial assistance packages. He put all his eggs in the tax cut basket
and
believed the mythology that tax cuts will fix any problem. In the
parlance, he
"drank his own kool aid" and no, that's not a good thing.
I've
already written far more in this thread than you or Xomicron have.
I've
shown
more research too. Now the ball is in your court.
More questions will come.
That's fine so long as you remember that my chief job in life is not to
convince
you.
It is now, at least with my responses to you in the NG. I am going to hold
you responsible for
explaining. And when you fail, I will make note ot if.
Just because I don't answer a question to your satisfaction doesn't mean I
don't have the answer. Also, I don't pretend to be able to solve all
problems.
You think you know more,
I'm sure I know more than some people. But we all have different
information
that we can contribute.
you think you have the
answers, I will come to you
for information.
That's fine, but help yourself too by doing some research too.
I don't need any books when we got a expert like you in
the NG
I'm not even sure what newsgroup you're in. All joking aside people can
learn
plenty of quality information just by chatting on usenet.
Note: You have attacked and named called republicans. Yet three comments
in this post that were negative about a Democrat...Clinton, Gore, and
Kerry...and you said
a) If I didn't agree with Kerry I am full of *****. I would be a moocher and
a thief if I don't agree with Kerry's tax plan
b) that I don't know anything about Clinton because I said he screwed
himself
c) since I feel that Gore talked down to people I have a inferiority complex
It is funny how defensive you became, even though I was showing you that I
was willing to disagree with Bush on a few things.
Hmmm, something to ponder..:o)
.
