NationStates Jolt Archive

Specifically, when it comes to one word: Bush. It has more effect when I describe the presidency of George W. Bush instead of Barbara Bush, a burning bush, or a magnolia bush. In fact, ponder for a moment of what you think when you here that name. In that sense, we are all Pavlov's Dogs.
It has been stirring up too many passions on this forum right now, and that's why I want to adress it. I guess I started thinking about it with another thread of mine, which said that leftist economist Dr. James Galbraith supported Bush's deficit spending as sound Keynesian economics, traditionally embraced by the left. I was horrified to find how many leftists said that Keynes was a right-winger, or that Bush was Keynesian in ideas, but used deficit spending on all the wrong programs (Keynes said that it didn't matter where the money went). I am equally horrified to see how many people think I am a Bush lover. It's really much more complex: I love parts of his admin.'s policies, hate some, and don't care for most.
Dr. Galbraith is an especially refreshing economist because he seemed to be one of the very few people that can separate Bush the man, and the Bush Admin as the policy organ. He also recognizes that Washington is a town where everyone makes the decisions. The Executive Branch is much too large for any one man's policy to override it. Yet many on NS simply assume that Bush is the dictator in the White House, and makes all of the decisions on his own. They also assume he is incompotent. I think, however, that because there are so many other people, everyone is incompotent. That may be true, that may be false, but everyone rushes to attack Bush the man, and leaves the rest of the Washington bureaocracy unscathed (unless it is a Bush appointee, of course).
That being said, Bush can inspire passions that he is a moral Superman and a political savior. But I don't see many of those on here. I only see lots of the embittered Bush haters, and that disturbs me. It makes no difference to me whether George and Laura are madly in love and their lives are great, or if George is a big pissant. Policies never tell. I've heard from a Cheney I know that Dick is really sweet and thoughtful. But I don't care, because I don't know him, and neither should you. What is wrong with our forum?
On another note, half of the replies will be from people who just tell me that Bush is bad, without elaborating why. This thread may even get locked if there are enough insults flying. But there will be a few replies that are truely worthy of conversation.

bush sucks!

i feel stupid askind but what is a 'pavels dog'?

*Furrows brow*

*Shuts eyes tight as if in pain*

*Puts forefingers to forehead and winces as if exerting a great effort to remember something*

Bush . . . is bad . . .

(The above has been a baseless stereotype of 'liberals')

i feel stupid askind but what is a 'pavels dog'?
It's passed into a figure of speach, but appearently, a hundred years ago, a man named Pavel in Eastern Europe did an experiment with dogs on instinct. He trained them to salivate at the sound of a dinner bell, even if food wasn't being served.

Pavlov. And Ivan.

Oh dude, I thought you were talking about a burning bush, so I got all hyped up and wanted to talk about it. But President Bush..pshaw, he's my homie, what else matters..

Pavlov. And Ivan.
My bad. Sorry. But I have the right idea, don't I?

Me no like Bush.

Maybe it's something to do with the fact that recently he only seems concerned with the Christian right-wing family-based demographic. Also, his enviromental policy is the worst in a long while.

bush sucks!

i suggest you stop your anti-bush spamming before you get warned by the mods.... or worse

Oh dude, I thought you were talking about a burning bush, so I got all hyped up and wanted to talk about it. But President Bush..pshaw, he's my homie, what else matters..
When I said burning bush, I meant a species of bushes that change leaves in the fall to look like they are burning. My mom loves putting them around her house.

bush sucks!

Please, let that be irony...

Anyway, I've never really thought of Bush as having much control. He has a particularly obnoxious style, and I really do think he is either not very bright and/or a compulsive liar, but overall doesn't behave that differently to most other presidents.

When I said burning bush, I meant a species of bushes that change leaves in the fall to look like they are burning. My mom loves putting them around her house.

we have some at the my house too...

bush sucks!

You've received an official warning for your spamming and trolling of other peoples threads Caribel. You've been told to KNOCK IT OFF. Continuing to do so will warrant a more strict punishment.

It's passed into a figure of speach, but appearently, a hundred years ago, a man named Pavel in Eastern Europe did an experiment with dogs on instinct. He trained them to salivate at the sound of a dinner bell, even if food wasn't being served.

ah.yay me not bein a pavel dog.i say this as i know very little about george bush and his abilities as a leader,or lack there of.and as such i avoid bush related threads

Please, let that be irony...

Anyway, I've never really thought of Bush as having much control. He has a particularly obnoxious style, and I really do think he is either not very bright and/or a compulsive liar, but overall doesn't behave that differently to most other presidents.
I think that it was the nature of his predecessors, specifically FDR and LBJ, that created the bureaucracy and, hence, allowed presidents control only in high-level matters. If anything, I feel sorry for Bush himself. His predecessors all made the presidency look like a cakewalk. He had several disasters to confront with, a new foreign policy with no precedent in US history, and his efforts to fix fiscal problems, like social security, with watered down solutions that, even then, no one wants to hear. But I will tell you that, as a president, George W. Bush will not remain a political weakling forever.

we have some at the my house too...
I see. Beautiful, aren't they?

When I said burning bush, I meant a species of bushes that change leaves in the fall to look like they are burning. My mom loves putting them around her house.
That is pretty cool, I thought you were talking about Moses and the burning bush.

I personally support President Bush, and consider few of his actions "very careless" or "very unwise". For instance, I do not like that he is closing down a lot of military bases over the U.S.A., if anything he should be closing down a lot of the military in Iraq. Because in my opinion, defense is so much more important than offense. Do I want to debate? No, sorry I shouldn't even be wasting time to post right now.

P.S. I think an Democrat who might be President at these times might just be spoiling the black Americans a tad to much for my liking.

Me no like Bush.

Maybe it's something to do with the fact that recently he only seems concerned with the Christian right-wing family-based demographic. Also, his enviromental policy is the worst in a long while.
What else is bad about him?

Ruff Ruff

Love Conquers Fear

Stop The War for Oil

You've received an official warning for your spamming and trolling of other peoples threads Caribel. You've been told to KNOCK IT OFF. Continuing to do so will warrant a more strict punishment. :D in this case Euro, it perfectly proves this thread's theory of "Stimulus and Response." ;)

Just as a point, Skinner would be spinning in his grave at this use of learned responce behavore.

Still don't like Bush, but that has more to do with his poilicies than anything else.

See, that's what irks me about these Bush debates. Being a neoconservative, I end up defending Bush a lot from left wingers. But the truth is, I don't really like the man that much. He's not the demon lefites make him out to be, but he truly isn't the spectacular President people seem to think I believe in. I'd personally prefer someone far more right wing.

:D in this case Euro, it perfectly proves this thread's theory of "Stimulus and Response." ;)
I think he was just trying to be a jerk, myself.

I think he was just trying to be a jerk, myself.hey, don't get me wrong, I never said he wasn't a jerk. :)

I just never seen anyone go though the who Mod procedure so quickly. First was the unoffical Warnings. then the Offical Warning... then the 3 day vacation...

wonder what thursday would be like...

DAMMIT did you have to type that name???

now i have to try to clean all this drool off my keyboard.

DAMMIT did you have to type that name???

now i have to try to clean all this drool off my keyboard.Psst... cloth dampened with 409 works...


err... or so I heard... :D

hey, don't get me wrong, I never said he wasn't a jerk. :)

I just never seen anyone go though the who Mod procedure so quickly. First was the unoffical Warnings. then the Offical Warning... then the 3 day vacation...

wonder what thursday would be like...
That's why I said in my first post that this may be locked, because I feared the insults would fly.

That's why I said in my first post that this may be locked, because I feared the insults would fly.honestly, I don't think so, it's actually an observation of human nature, now Caribel was a jerk but the Psychological side to this thread is rather interesting.

I just didn't have anything real to add to it.

Bush... bad. :D Simple knee jerk reaction right? Really, you only need one reason to feel this way. Once he invaded Iraq he should have proved this observation. All you need to do is see the result of his actions. :sniper:

Bush... bad. :D Simple knee jerk reaction right? Really, you only need one reason to feel this way. Once he invaded Iraq he should have proved this observation. All you need to do is see the result of his actions. :sniper:
If you truely believe that, good for you. Most people don't. They just see Iraq as one in a series of grievances that just simply escalate. Often, in choosing criticisms, reason is overriden by hatred, and thus, if Bush handed out candy to orphans, that'd be bad somehow. Take this lattest disaster. There are several things that one can reasonably criticize Bush on, though my opinion is that we won't know until the water is pumped out of New Orleans. However, many are criticising Bush as careless and malicious, despite the two terms often being contradictary. I personally think that this is, as Bill Clinton just said, the biggest disaster since the Mississippi floods of '27, and the government at all levels was just overwhelmed.

The metaphore of Pavlov's Dogs could easily be applied to almost all of America when it comes to politics. I'd say that a minimum of 50% of Americans have pavlonian responses to certain political parties, IE: Bush = bad, Democrats = good. Or vice versa. But this isn't an NSer phenominon.

The metaphore of Pavlov's Dogs could easily be applied to almost all of America when it comes to politics. I'd say that a minimum of 50% of Americans have pavlonian responses to certain political parties, IE: Bush = bad, Democrats = good. Or vice versa. But this isn't an NSer phenominon.
I don't. Most Americans don't know what to believe, which in a way, is even worse.

I wasn't talking so much about what you think after a few seconds of internal dialoge regarding the finer points of party politics. I was refering to the instantanious thought of Bush = bad. I'm sure all people are introspective and thoughtful when given time to think about it, but it's that first instinctive thought that really represents what I'm talking about.

But you can still look at the huge with-us-or-against-us split in America today and see what I'm talking about.

I wasn't talking so much about what you think after a few seconds of internal dialoge regarding the finer points of party politics. I was refering to the instantanious thought of Bush = bad. I'm sure all people are introspective and thoughtful when given time to think about it, but it's that first instinctive thought that really represents what I'm talking about.

But you can still look at the huge with-us-or-against-us split in America today and see what I'm talking about.
Well, while people can be introspective, most have neither the time nor the will. They have many other things to do. It is a product of our democracy being so successful, if you want to call it that. I mean, only in America can people live their lives freely and seriously care little about the government.

Finally someone else who realizes there is a deference between what Bush wants and what the government wants. People need to realize that every time the government (American government that is) does something its not because Bush ordered it.

I'm a conservative but not pro-Bush however, I am sick of people blaming him for everything the government does. Slow response to the New Orleans disaster? Its Bush's fault, not the people in charge of the various disaster relief agency’s! Yes, President Bush may have appointed them, but remember its not like he randomly pointed to someone and put them in that spot, he works on the information the bureaucracy, which does not change with every new administration, to provide him with the facts he makes his decisions on! [/rant]

I think Lotus Puppy is kind of right. There is a certain sort of people for whom anything that Bush does must be bad in some way, and they'll always try to find that angle, and once they've found it they'll accept it as the truth.

And the same goes the other way too. And the same goes for people in other countries as well - for some people the Conservatives will never do anything right, that isn't greedy or selfish.

All rather depressing. I'm not a fan of Bush but I have a feeling that, like Reagan, he is to some extent a figurehead on top of an active ideological administration that really runs the place. Among the many things the two Presidents have in common is that they both take very long holidays. Why? Because it doesn't matter whether they are there as much as it perhaps should.

So I don't buy the image of Bush as a raging religious right-winger. Anyone else notice how his evangelical conversion came just at the right time to set him up for a political career? Am I the only one? No? Good.

Finally someone else who realizes there is a deference between what Bush wants and what the government wants. People need to realize that every time the government (American government that is) does something its not because Bush ordered it.
-snip-


See, but Bush wasn't thrust into the job of President, he actively sought it and acheived it, so he has to live with it. That means taking responsibility for things. Now, as President, he has certain official powers. Among them are being the Commander in Chief, signing laws in to effect, vetoing (which he hasn't done on a spending bill,) and the power to place the people he wants in places of power (Secretaries, Justices, officials high up in departments, etc...)
When those officials he appoints fail, Bush shares in the responsibility. When Congress acts upon the proposed budget of the President, you gotta lay at least some blame on the President's feet. When a single order from the President could have mobilized a better emergency response in NO and nothing of the sort happened, you have to say that maybe Bush shouldn't have been on vacation.
When an atmosphere of politicians not taking responsibility for their actions arises, you have to point the finger (and I do mean THE finger,) at Bush. His has been an administration of failed leadership. There is a culture of inefficiency, partisanship, pork, science-denial, cronyism, buck-passing and outright denial of facts. This HAS to reflect poorly on the person who is the leader. To seek the office and then duck the responsibility is not the sign of a true leader. Nothing is ever Bush's fault, apparently.

Makes me think some dirty liberal or terrorist sabotaged Bush's bike and pretzel. Hey, Bush didn't make the pretzel, someone else is responsible for Bush's botched eating attempt!

Sorry for the rambling post, but I get tired of people going "But Bush isn't responsible for that!"

He's President. Part of the job is taking responsibility for things that are only tangentally involved with the strict interpretation of his duties. A leader is responsible for the actions of his underlings.

See, but Bush wasn't thrust into the job of President, he actively sought it and acheived it, so he has to live with it. That means taking responsibility for things. Now, as President, he has certain official powers. Among them are being the Commander in Chief, signing laws in to effect, vetoing (which he hasn't done on a spending bill,) and the power to place the people he wants in places of power (Secretaries, Justices, officials high up in departments, etc...)
When those officials he appoints fail, Bush shares in the responsibility. When Congress acts upon the proposed budget of the President, you gotta lay at least some blame on the President's feet. When a single order from the President could have mobilized a better emergency response in NO and nothing of the sort happened, you have to say that maybe Bush shouldn't have been on vacation.
When an atmosphere of politicians not taking responsibility for their actions arises, you have to point the finger (and I do mean THE finger,) at Bush. His has been an administration of failed leadership. There is a culture of inefficiency, partisanship, pork, science-denial, cronyism, buck-passing and outright denial of facts. This HAS to reflect poorly on the person who is the leader. To seek the office and then duck the responsibility is not the sign of a true leader. Nothing is ever Bush's fault, apparently.

Makes me think some dirty liberal or terrorist sabotaged Bush's bike and pretzel. Hey, Bush didn't make the pretzel, someone else is responsible for Bush's botched eating attempt!

Sorry for the rambling post, but I get tired of people going "But Bush isn't responsible for that!"

He's President. Part of the job is taking responsibility for things that are only tangentally involved with the strict interpretation of his duties. A leader is responsible for the actions of his underlings.
What I say will not matter one bit, as no politician in their right minds wants to let people think this. However, politicians are chosen simply because of their ability to take flak. Their campaign managers get them elected, and many of their ideas come from a team of bright young speachwriters in the back room. Once in office, the president has the choice of appointing people to offices he knows nothing about, because by this point, his campaign dumps him. This is true of all politicians.
I am not saying that they can't share the responsibility. I am saying that very rarely does a president have a platform of his own, which I believe no one did since Reagan. In fact, I don't see why anyone ever chooses to be a candidate for any election, but particularly president. They are mere figureheads, and at most, they are expert catalystic leaders.

I am not saying that they can't share the responsibility. I am saying that very rarely does a president have a platform of his own, which I believe no one did since Reagan. In fact, I don't see why anyone ever chooses to be a candidate for any election, but particularly president. They are mere figureheads, and at most, they are expert catalystic leaders.
A figurehead? Not as such. The president wields real power. Yes, the policies enacted usually spring midlevel and then wander up for his review and approval, but he does aprove them. Also, the president is the face of the nation, whether we like it or not. His actions carry some major reactions to the rest of the world and what he does is studied for any nucence that would predict the actions of the United States and the stance of its goverment.

However, I also agree that the president has far less real control than most people believe. The Congress has far more power over things than he does (he can be overidden by Congress, he can't overide them). However, human nature, being human nature, it is far easier to rally around one man (or hate one man) than it is to rally around a group of individuals.

But that does raise an interesting question, he is percived as having more power than he does, and since perception often will dictate the reality in politics, does this actually grant him the powers he is thought to have, as long as the people keep believing?

A figurehead? Not as such. The president wields real power. Yes, the policies enacted usually spring midlevel and then wander up for his review and approval, but he does aprove them. Also, the president is the face of the nation, whether we like it or not. His actions carry some major reactions to the rest of the world and what he does is studied for any nucence that would predict the actions of the United States and the stance of its goverment.
As I said, he is a catalyst. Of course, the constitution gave power to him, and not his advisers, but he merely makes decisions on the advice he's given. That's why advisers are there in the first place. I can never recall this president, or any president, save a few, having an original idea.
Also, we look back at the president because he is most visible. But as I said, his advisors do the heavy lifting. I see this most clearly in foreign policy. Why study the foreign policy decisions of Nixon and Bush Sr? Everyone who does a bit iof looking knows that the architects of their foreign policies were Kissenger and Baker, respectively.

But that does raise an interesting question, he is percived as having more power than he does, and since perception often will dictate the reality in politics, does this actually grant him the powers he is thought to have, as long as the people keep believing?
Not necessarily. The president can become very powerful when he wants to. Abraham Lincoln, for example, had extremely strong values when running, and as we know, he developed his own campaign strategy, too. Yet he ruled almost as a dictator. Why? Because he knew exactly why he was there, and what he was going to do.
I believe that a man can become much more powerful if he has a clear idea of what he believes. Advisors are only good to keep this idealism rooted in reality. This contrasts to many politicians, who enjoy being manhandled and never bother to live for anything other than the adrenaline rush power gives. I guess that's why people keep running for the presidency. Despite the overwhelming workload, the constant press conferences, the ideaological battles and the relatively shitty pay, the president is the head of the free world, and, if you don't mind the figurative speech, the master of the universe.

I see this most clearly in foreign policy. Why study the foreign policy decisions of Nixon and Bush Sr? Everyone who does a bit iof looking knows that the architects of their foreign policies were Kissenger and Baker, respectively.
True, but the person who implimented those policies was the president.

the master of the universe.
Oh great, now I have this mental image of a half naked, oiled Bush waving around a sword, screaming "I HAVE THE POWER!" :p

Oh great, now I have this mental image of a half naked, oiled Bush waving around a sword, screaming "I HAVE THE POWER!" :pthanks, now I see Rumsfeild as Man-at-arms and Cheney as Orko :headbang:

of course, Rice as Teela...

(grumble)
everything has been said...I hate always finding threads after they have been exhausted :mad:

True, but the person who implimented those policies was the president.

What else is a president to do?
Oh great, now I have this mental image of a half naked, oiled Bush waving around a sword, screaming "I HAVE THE POWER!" :p
Ah. The rise of the ubermenschen.

(grumble)
everything has been said...I hate always finding threads after they have been exhausted :mad:
Maybe some new ideas will come along.

bump