Ive heard Bush say a lot of cr@p, and alot of it has really pissed me off. he dosent even know how to talk! youll hear him in speeches making up words! i want to know what you think about Bush, do you think he's a good president, or not?

quote:

Originally posted by caraisinette:
Who the heck do you people think you are? You live in this country, you eat the food grown on its soil, you buy its products and participate in its school systems and businesses, you reap all the benefits this country has to offer and yet you sit back on your lazy bums and critize the man who runs the country you live in. If you cant support the leader and his decisions, maybe you should consider leaving and immigrating to another country. The last thing he needs are people like you standing back and critizing his decisions without taking action of your own. What would you do in his position? You probably wouldn't know what to do. And another thing, dont hate the president for making a decision to go to war, for your information, he cannot command the army to fight without permission from congress...funny how you can critize without knowning what you are talking about first.

So pretty much what you are saying is we cant have an opinion just because we cant do anything. We cant just go in and say to Bush get the fuck outta here. And actually the congress are the ones just sitting on their bums and letting this idiot bring this country to hell. So maybe you need to get your facts strait. The president has more power over congress than you think.

K cheergirl, you are an idiot if you think that bush is a good president. Give me 3 good reasons why he is a good president. I can give you actual reasons instead of just being all pisses off just cuz you agree with an idiot. He has brought this country into a debt larger than this country has ever seen. 9 trillion frieken dollars! Also, he has made it so the rich are even richer by taking taxes away from them and using that money for a fund that is going to dissapate because even that wont help them as far as funding goes.

BUSH IS DOING A LEGAL TERRORISM......SO.....NOW U THINK IS HE A GOOD PRESIDENT

I ALSO HEARD BUSH SAY ALOT OF S@*T THAT HE DIDN'T FOLLOW. HE WAS SUPPOSED TO HELP IN HURRUCANE KATRINA BUT HE DIDN'T. I HEARD IN A MAGAZINE QUOTED FROM DIDDY THAT "BUSH DOES NOT LIKE BLACK PEOPLE. IT TOOK HIM LIKE THREE TO FIVE DAYS TO HELP HURRICANE KATRINA." I THINK BUSH IS ONE OF THE CRAPPIEST PRESIDENTS WE EVER HAD. I CANT WAIT TIL HIS TERM IS OVER. HOPEFULLY ARE NEXT PRESIDENT DOES A BETTER JOB THAN HE DOES. AND ALSO THE WAR IN IRAQ. I THINK HE NEEDS TO GET THEM TROOPS THE F*CK OUT OF THERE. I HAVE A CUZZIN OVER THERE AND I'M AFRAID HE GONNA GET HURT.

quote:

Ramote control

I take it you mean remote control.

And yes, I do agree that he takes no consideration of the other powers. Where is the checks and balances when you need it? *sigh* Oh, and that was a rhetorical question for those that didn't get it.

Ramote control....How did the war start, and how is he getting this troop increase. He didnt confirm a court order for the spying scandal. I think he takes power, with out consideration of others, including the legislature.

Bumping a nearly month old thread with a completely worthless contribution. Well done.

Bush.. i personally cant wait for him to leave! i do not believe in him sending more troops to Iraq. i also gotta say, he isnt the brightest. like wen he said something about his right hand he held up his left and wen he said left hand, he held up his right. wow.
overall, i got to say NO

quote:

perhaps you are right speed; i saw the one post that i went on a rant about, and didn't read any further, but in truth, that entire post is contradictory and naive, which in it of itself is something to be debated. To be honest, I did not take your post entirely literal; I considered the fact that it was so clouded in confusion that perhaps you were being sarcastic but I chose to debunk what morals you defined as guidelines for a society.

The post was not contradictory, point out whatever seemed contradictory and I will gadly enlighten you .
The post was not clouded in confusion, you were incapable of understanding it. If you choose to brand everything you don't understand as clouded in confusion there's issues we should talk about
To further prove my previous point, you somehow seemed to interpret my post as a set of moral guidelienes for a society, If you read over it carefully you will notice that it says nothing of the sort, what it does make rather clear, is that those are my personal guidelines, wich I alone abide to.

By criticizing someone's personal philosofy you do manage to prove prepotence, and you a do a good job at it too !

perhaps you are right speed; i saw the one post that i went on a rant about, and didn't read any further, but in truth, that entire post is contradictory and naive, which in it of itself is something to be debated. To be honest, I did not take your post entirely literal; I considered the fact that it was so clouded in confusion that perhaps you were being sarcastic but I chose to debunk what morals you defined as guidelines for a society.

My point is that no government is a part of utopia, as you so duly stand by, but anarchy itself is not utopic. The lack of a governing body in a peaceful coercive society is a utopian ideal. Anarchy refers to the state of a society lacking government or law, leading to confusion, chaos, and disorder. Perhaps you should choose your "vocab" words more carefully.

Furthermore, yes i take pride in using "a simile of exquisite vocabulary." Perhaps it is more beneficial to proving one's point than spelling anarchism as "anarchyism," or using words that make no sense in the context, such as "simile" for that matter, unless perhaps there is some utopian definition of simile I do notfully grasp... and yes i am being facetious.

quote:

Originally posted by speed:

quote:

He displays the virtue and intellegence of a true world leader. He's changing the world by example.

lmao that was sarcasm wasn't it?

I do hope so. Changing the world by example? Sure maybe, but they aren't really great changes now are they?

I'll be glad to discuss political ideology and theoretics with you whenever you want, I wonder wich of us is the bigger idiot

Also, you seemed to somehow interpret that I'm an Anarchyst through me claiming anarchy as a utopic ideal. While I do simpathize with some of the precepts of anarchysm, I don't support it because I don't believe in a fixed ideology, and because, as I said, it's utopic.
stfu and learn how to interpret what you read before going on a rant with a simile of exquisite vocabulary, you understand absolutely nothing if your interpretation of my previous posts was solely literal.

I stand by my claim that the bush administration as a whole is horrible.

I agree. Bush failed when he made poor use of the opportunity awarded him by 9/11. This is not to say that 9/11 was a good thing, but it was beneficial in that almost the whole world was united in sorrow for the victims. Bush could have used that opportunity to speak out against religious intolerance and the fundamentalist view of Islam that allowed such violence to happen. We could have stopped groups such as al Qaeda in their tracks.

Instead, we invade an oil-rich Arab nation completely unconnected to the 9/11 attacks and give al Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups more fuel for propaganda than they could have ever hoped for. Bad move.

Anyways, I don't think Bush is the biggest problem here. It's his administration. Bush doesn't really make decisions; instead he listens to a small group of trusted aides (Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld all come to mind) and does what they recommend. This included, unfortunately, the invasion of Iraq, even when it was clear that Iraq had no ties to al Qaeda or any other terrorist group since the early 1990s. Incompetence and bureaucracy are the main problems.

look at the country under bush and you will find that it is no different than under clinton. The economy is good, and if you would like to tell me otherwise, please do give me more than the statistics, because the statistics say the economy is good. Where Bush lacks as a president is the War in Iraq, which even as a conservative, I believe now has been broken beyond repair. If that problem were to be solved, then you would find that the world and even most of our country would be back on his side. he is not a bad president, nor a good president, at present he is in the middle teetering on the line between good and bad. His last two years in office will truly define his presidency.
Ps. hurricane katrina response was poor yes. But there were far too many other officials to place the blame on than just Bush.

quote:

Anarchy is utopic

You are an utter idiot speed

quote:

-Freedom: Not that horrible word used by the US government and military to name their operations.
Freedom as the right to say and think what ever I f*cking want whenever I want without a militarist fanatic pestering me because he is unable to tolerate dissent, and proceeds to attack me.

You are right but the definition of freedom varies greatly. You can live within a democratic government and be free, which you most likely believe is untrue.

I live in the US, and I can't remember a single time that I have had a direct problem with the government. If you want to complain about driver's licenses and whatever, you're a lazy shithead. Taxes? they're good. i dont know about you but anarchy would be a nightmare. Not only would there be rampant crime, and i mean RAMPANT: raping, pillaging that sort of thing, but we would also be raped lickity-split by china, North Korea, Mexico, Canada, Prague, whatever freakin country has a military with at least one guy in it. You are a moron. You think anarchy would be good because you are an idiotic rebel who understands nothing about history or the world around you other than pot and sitting on your couch most likely. I do not learn something in school and say i am all for it or all against it; I read books, I study the ideas of other people, and i follow whichever one makes sense.

quote:

-Knowledge: As the ability to constantly question everything that is thought absolute, as the only thing we can know for sure, is that nothing is absolute. Reading, writing, thinking, debating, etc... all these actions are aimed at the gain of knowledge(aside form the ego factor).

How can you give this definition of knowledge and say everything else you have said in your post? Did you just rip it off from dictionary.com? I find it very hard to believe that you read any sort of intellectual books... maybe John STewart's encyclopedia or whatever nonsense that is.

quote:

-Equality: As in what is clear on our constitution. We are all born equal. Culture, economy, politics, religion, etc... all these things divide us and make some of us inferior to others, that is why i search for knowledge by questioning everything that is absolute. Everything that is currently accepted is further perpetrating inequality and suffering, thus I look for an alternative.

Again, I do not understand how you can write that, and say the other things you've said.

quote:

-Discipline: As in self discipline, learning to respect others, even when questioning their actions or views. Discipline is not about others behaving correctly and staying in line. It's about ourselves respecting the freedom of others. My freedom ends where yours begins and viceversa. Discipline is not imposable on others as it conflicts with their right of freedom, discipline must be self imposed in all cases.

Again, I do not understand how you can write that, and say the other things you've said. You said discipline is respecting others even if you question what they say or do............................
point proven.

quote:

-Education: A constant education, not going to school. A constant process of learning that allows me to keep in touch with what i believe is important, and helps me make concepts like self imposed discipline more factible and possible to apply through the adquisition of respect towards others.

The fact of the matter is that you are able to sit here and write right now because you went to school. I SERIOUSLY doubt that you would have the competence to get out of bed when you were 7 to start reading John Locke, Hobbes, and math for dummies.

quote:

Ego: Nourishing my ego to make myself happy. Like right now, this can be done in many ways, one of them is debate. A satisfied ego is a necessity for happines.

believe it or not i agree with this last one, and have no comments about it.

I think you are correct; utopia is truly a wonderful type of life, and if our world was a utopia, we'd be happy. Unfortunately, Utopia is not attainable. WE are animals... like everything else living, breathing, and moving about as eukaryotic, multicellular beings. Without government, we would have no science, education, anything to be suggesting the abstract concept of utopia or the abstract concept of society in the first place. WE would also kill one another over women or mates if anything, even if we had no property whatsoever. That is what animals do. We would kill for food, because guess what? in utopia, there would be no such thing as vegetarianism, because our mind would not have ben stimulated enough to come up with the abstract concept of animals having feelings too. Who would define civilized? no one person could have the right to define civilized, because the moment one person gains advantage over others socially, government has been formed. You can't escape it. Government is here and now, and at this point there is no going back. Had we been destined to live the utopian life, evolution would have seen to it. Evolution wouldve prevented us from speech, higher thought, communication, etc, and government and society would have never evolved. But that is what happened, and this is where we have come today. We are an evolutionary step above ants, who, like us have government. Perhpas they dont make rights or write out laws, but if a member of the colony acts up against the others, he is executed. The colony works as a whole to protect itself from invaders.

I know i have gone off on a tangent, but do not speak of anarchy as a means to our own salvation. Any intelligent person will tell you that reform and adaptation of what is already instituted is what we need to better society.

is bush a good president?
let's examine the country he's in charge of for a change...

Death, poverty, rapists, sorrow, the poor and the not poor. the United States is a dog-eat-dog place to be. believe me.
a good president is nothing like G.B.

quote:

He displays the virtue and intellegence of a true world leader. He's changing the world by example.

lmao that was sarcasm wasn't it?

quote:

It's also why a monarchy ruled by a religious king is useful: the king will be moral enough to rule fairly

Have you studied European History?

quote:

And it's rather difficult to cultivate a Socratesian reverence for the law (where one obeys even an unjust law for the good of the society, even to death).

Socrates did the exact opposite by questioning everything that was taken for granted. The only reason he conformed with his execution(mandated suicide) was because he believed it would further prove his point.

You have to look at those pointers with a broader perspective, as I said, they are my personal beliedf, nowhere do I imply that others should follow them. From what I've seen most others are probably incapable of following them.

Out of all of those there are 2 that prime to remain functional:
Respect for others, my freedom ends where yours begins, and equality, we all deserve equal freedom.

More than standing by the definition of the terms, I choose to redefine them to accomodate my values more comfortably.
It's not about Following a fixed set of ideas, that is utopic, it's about changing ideas to suit certain situations, while continuing to follow certain priority's that one deems important.

quote:

discipline, established hierarchy, and uniformity of though[t]

Removing the implication of mindless conformity, these are not intrinsically bad things.

I believe freedom and discipline are indivisible. Without enforcement, there is no discipline. This isn't to say that it must be external: proper parenting gives children self-control, and it can be learned by adults. However, it's a bit of a stretch to say that everyone will become self-controlled and every child will grow to be a disciplined adult. The influence of the strong is usually taken from the weak unless an internal or an external force prevents it. If you assume an internal force prevents it, you fall into the Utopian Plothole: Without reason to be altruistic, many people wouldn't be. And it's rather difficult to cultivate a Socratesian reverence for the law (where one obeys even an unjust law for the good of the society, even to death). Control by external force is equally problematic - a fascist state is one of few freedoms. That's why a government by the people, etc. is useful: sufficient internal control is cultivated (theoretically) to control the external forces controlling the populace. It's also why a monarchy ruled by a religious king is useful: the king will be moral enough to rule fairly (assuming the king is religious enough to try to overcome his own corruption), and his internal control will make for good populace control (having the power of a king, of course).
Also, what about equality? What is equality? Is it a pie-in-the-sky goal or realistic for the human race? Is it simply treating others with respect or does it stretch to believing that every person you see is your equal in every way? Will people who begin unbiased remain so, and treat all others equally? Or, will some 'tribal' instinct reassert itself, and separate us into cultures and groups?

Enough of that, what about education? Honestly, I'm going to school to become a teacher: what would you change? (I'm operating under the assumption that schools won't be abolished any time soon (but they say grades will! - no lie) so assuming schools will still be around, what would you change?)