NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/nsalvato/2005/ns_08171.shtml

Do you guys think that President Bush is a lot like George Washington? And how similar would you say that the Iraq war is to the Revolutionary War?

EDIT: Oh. I found one similarity.

For both of them, the "I cannot tell a lie," thing turned out to be a myth. :D

Are things written on a party propaganda website really worth debating? They are both presidents and they have the same first name. That's about as far as the comparison goes.

Are things written on a party propaganda website really worth debating? They are both presidents and they have the same first name. That's about as far as the comparison goes.
I don't know. If Conservatives can bring up MichaelMoore.com, then surely I ought to be able to bring up articles like this, on GOPUSA.

What the heck?
George Washington was vehemently opposed to “foreign entanglements” and political parties. They aren’t anything alike.
On the same note, to suggest that Gulf War II is anything like the American Revolutionary War is ludicrous.

Are you kidding? For the log Iraq did not attack us on September goddamed 11th. Are people so incredibly dumb?!? They are not taxing us or misrepresenting us? I can't even belive someone would compare the two. Ugh I can't take this...

Well...they are both lying polticians, so that's a commonality...

They are both white, Christian, and President at some point.
And they have DNA more similar to each other than a monkey (I think...).

Other than that, what the hell? The two are NOTHING alike! One basically built the executive branch, the other invades people. :p

Well...they are both lying polticians, so that's a commonality...
Washington wasn’t a career politician, and he really didn’t want to be. He was a general who the electoral college decided to make the first president.

If Bush is like Washington, then Clinton was like Lincoln.

(For the record, Clinton was not like Lincoln.)

:rolleyes:

although bush and washington have many diffrences such as washington never wanted to be a leader, i think they also have one thing in common, the fact that they are both presidents, washington was not opposed to political parties infact he was a member of one, called the federalists

although bush and washington have many diffrences such as washington never wanted to be a leader, i think they also have one thing in common, the fact that they are both presidents, washington was not opposed to political parties infact he was a member of one, called the federalists
Federalism = Big government.

George Washington resigned and went happilly back to private life after his term.

George Bush has served two, and I would not be surprised at an attempt to continue the 'dynasty' with Jeb.

George Bush is no George Washington, that's for sure. Putting those two paragraphs side by side reminds me of how much I hate it when politicians say "we" when ever they make a statement. George Washington did it too, but George Bush makes a habit of it. He takes it to such an extreme that my blood pressure goes up when ever I listen to him talk regardless of whether I agree with him or not.

I do NOT like George Bush's speech writer. He is obviously a neo-conservative with a degree in psychology. The President needs a new one immediately. I have a feeling George Washington wrote his own speeches, although I'm not sure about that.

Well...they are both lying polticians, so that's a commonality...

*sticks his fingers in his ears* George Washington was great! I'm not listening!

George Washington resigned and went happilly back to private life after his term.

George Bush has served two, and I would not be surprised at an attempt to continue the 'dynasty' with Jeb.

George Washington served two terms. That's where the tradition came from.

You've got to be kidding me? Bush is nothing like Washington! George Washington was a principled and extremely ethical man. They designed the office of the president using Washington as the model and the ideal for the office.

(Not saying Bush isn't principled, but he'd probably take another term in office if he could)

Hahaha. And I just saw this advertisement, on GOPUSA.

http://www.gopusa.com/images/ads/coulter_dvd.gif

You've got to be kidding me? Bush is nothing like Washington! George Washington was a principled and extremely ethical man. They designed the office of the president using Washington as the model and the ideal for the office.

(Not saying Bush isn't principled, but he'd probably take another term in office if he could)

If anything, Bush is principled to a fault.

although bush and washington have many diffrences such as washington never wanted to be a leader, i think they also have one thing in common, the fact that they are both presidents, washington was not opposed to political parties infact he was a member of one, called the federalists
Which was not an official party
Here is Washington’s address in 1796. See how well it matches up with Bush.
Link (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm)
An excerpt:
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Federalism = Big government.
Back then, a federalist was anybody who supported the idea of a unified United States and not a confederacy made up of independent states such as was under the Articles of Confederation.

Back then, a federalist was anybody who supported the idea of a unified United States and not a confederacy made up of independent states such as was under the Articles of Confederation.
Hence a LARGE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The whole idea behind it was whether states should have more power than the federal government, or if the federal government should have more power. In that light, "Federalists," were Liberals. The argument continues today.

Hence a LARGE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The whole idea behind it was whether states should have more power than the federal government, or if the federal government should have more power. In that light, "Federalists," were Liberals. The argument continues today.

I don't think there is much of a debate on those terms anymore, at least not among the people in power. Everyone thinks that the federal government should have power to do what they want it to do and no power to do what they don't want it to do.

Hence a LARGE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The whole idea behind it was whether states should have more power than the federal government, or if the federal government should have more power. In that light, "Federalists," were Liberals. The argument continues today.
I am pretty confident when I say that the federal powers have extended far past what any old federalists intended. They did support checks on the federal government by the states, pretty strict ones.

I don't think that there has ever been better proof that America is not a polarized nation then the results of this poll.

And George Washington would be calling for a 'smaller federal government' if he were still alive today. As it is, he's limited to rolling over in his grave every 10 minutes or so.

I don't think that there has ever been better proof that America is not a polarized nation then the results of this poll.

And George Washington would be calling for a 'smaller federal government' if he were still alive today. As it is, he's limited to rolling over in his grave every 10 minutes or so.
I hate it when people say stuff like this. Maybe Old George was objective enough to look at the vastly different circumstances in which we live and decide that the decisions we made concerning political power were more or less the right ones.

And they have DNA more similar to each other than a monkey (I think...).

:p

Surely that's a poll in itself?

although bush and washington have many diffrences such as washington never wanted to be a leader, i think they also have one thing in common, the fact that they are both presidents, washington was not opposed to political parties infact he was a member of one, called the federalists

In reality, Washington was never part of a political party.

I don't see how people can compare George Washington with anyone nevermind someone like Bush.

I don't think that there has ever been better proof that America is not a polarized nation then the results of this poll.

Except insofar as America is indeed, a mightily divided nation.

Right down the middle.

Swoosh.

White Christian President, lets see i think theres 41 more of those...

I hope George Washington and George W. Bush will never have similar tenures in office...:(

The fucking nerve of these bastards. I sent a very vehement letter to them in response.

Well...they are both lying polticians, so that's a commonality...

I request instances in which George Washington deliberately lied to the American people. Go.

although bush and washington have many diffrences such as washington never wanted to be a leader, i think they also have one thing in common, the fact that they are both presidents, washington was not opposed to political parties infact he was a member of one, called the federalists

Washington wasn't a federalist. He even warned against political parties. He simply agreed with many of the federalist's proposals because the US needed more structure at that time such as the Federal Bank issue. HAMILTON was the federalist.

Hence a LARGE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The whole idea behind it was whether states should have more power than the federal government, or if the federal government should have more power. In that light, "Federalists," were Liberals. The argument continues today.

Study more history. The US was a lose confederacy who's system and government weren't working which is why they scrapped the Articles of Confederation. Of course Washington would agree with the federalist, they were giving him more plans for organization in which there was little organization. He was a RATIONAL individual.

White Christian President, lets see i think theres 41 more of those...

Washington was a deist. Actually, if I recall correctly, we didn't even have a christian president untill John Quincy Adams.

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/nsalvato/2005/ns_08171.shtml

Do you guys think that President Bush is a lot like George Washington? And how similar would you say that the Iraq war is to the Revolutionary War?

EDIT: Oh. I found one similarity.

For both of them, the "I cannot tell a lie," thing turned out to be a myth. :D

Though, they do not illustrate the difference:

The Reason For War

George Washington was speaking of independence for this nation.
George W. Bush's reasoning had nothing to do with independence. Our Independence was not under threat; and the target persued (against Iraq) had no bearing what-so-ever on our independence as a nation, nor in relation to the attack commenced on 9/11... The Afgani situation, is of course different. But I stand firm, that the continuation of conflict, later pushed into Iraq, had no justification persuant to the events of 9/11... And any comparison between GW and GWB is ridiculous.

The Greatest Military In The World

I sympathize with the nobility of Washington persuant to the Revolution which occured in these previous colonies, and the resultant independence reached for out lands.... However, to compare soldiers fighting for their homes, to soldiers acting in an invasive capacity against another nation; is patently absurd.

Fulfilling Their Destiny

Once again, the difference is the PURPOSE and PLAN of the differing engagements...

You're Either With Us Or Against Us

These quotes are not even inter-relative.... GW speeks of seeking out European aid via France; GWB is speaking of engaging anyone who does not support them.... GW never once suggested invading, or attacking France if they did not support the American Revolution...

Intelligence Measures

Once again, illustrative difference in purpose... GW suppose gaining intelligence from an actual enemy to the Colonies... Kyl, is speaking of an attack upon a what was effectively not a threat to our Republic.

The Ring Must Be Destroyed

These are not even inter-relative...

Troops Must Come First

GW actually put his men first... The Republicans in the Congress, along with the President, are the ones who did the intial "gunning-down" of legislation to better equip them...

Fifth Column

This one, relating to the great Bush lie.... Is not deserving of response..

Hence a LARGE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

The whole idea behind it was whether states should have more power than the federal government, or if the federal government should have more power. In that light, "Federalists," were Liberals. The argument continues today.

Federalists were in opposition to the "Democratic-Republicans" [which later became the Democrats]...

Either side was "liberal" by the standards of their time; however the Federalists were far more "conservative" than the Democratic-Republicans... Though the Federalists won out during the formation of this nation: Most who were avowed "Federalists" at the time of the Constitutional Convention, switched sides later on; including notables such as Madison...

The entire US was "liberal" during this time.... "Conservatives" were known as "Torries" and they fled to Canada during and after the war....

If by "liberal" you mean proponents of "Big Government"; then both present day Republicans and present day Democrats are "liberal"...