Originally posted by ultraflo
Quote:
|
I have nothing else to contribute Jim, as I lack the capacity and the initiative to hold an intelligent, logical, coherent debate with you. I will however, throw my $.02 in whenever I see fit, just as you do. Fair enough? I hope so...
|
Yes, it's certainly 'fair enough' but understand that when you characterize mine - or anyone else's - comments as
'Ultra-Conservtive Gibberish' that's an insult of it's own and you had better be ready to defend that characterization with more than a dictionary definition.
I'm more than willing, as you should know, to discuss conservtive political philosophy with you or anyone else on a civil basis but name-calling and cheesy bumper-sticker slogans like
'regurgitating Ultra-Conservative gibberish' annoy me because they assume I have no real intellectual basis for my political positions and am simply spouting nonsense when in fact, I've spent many years and devoted much thought to forming my political philosophy. I certainly don't get it from radio shows, as is often charged by those who get
their opinions from the liberal media or whatever some ultra-liberal college prof taught them. If you wish to debate, don't fall into the trap of using hot-button phrases (as you did) or buzz-words that mean nothing and consider that an argument. It isn't. We all use certain hot-button phrases in political discussions but to let a few cryptic phrases serve as an entire response is akin to simply throwing a rock at a tank. It may make you feel good but the tank driver doesn't even notice you. In short: that kind of 'style' is not effective.
As for Bush 'single-handedly' getting things accomplishe;: It works like this: If the president doesn't propose and/or approve a major government policy, it doesn't happen. This applies to
all presidents, whatever party or political bent, liberal or conservative. If George W. Bush hadn't initially decided to go after Saddam Hussein and didn't (for political reasons) stand up in the U.N. General Assembly podium and ask the assembled diplomats if they wanted the U.N. to live up to it's charter or become totally irrelevant (Bush's words) the U.S. would never have gotten U.N. cooperation, with 100% approval of the U.N. Security Council, including France, to go into Iraq. Because he's the President of the United States, Bush could do this and
because Bush had the
will to do it, we are soon to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam. Clinton had eight years and could have done the exact same thing, but he didn't.
Bush did. That's leadership - and only a U.S. president has that kind of power but he has to also have the will to use it.
Colin Powell can't do it (without Bush's approval). Only the president. George W. Bush had the will and used his power in the United Nations to gain that approval for inspections and military intervention if and when the inspections warrant it, which they will. That's the definition of
'single-handedly' in this instance. Bush did what only he could do, and it worked.
Same with tax cuts, whatever. Congress
can kill it but it never
gets started without the president deciding to do whatever 'it' may be. Thus, President Bush 'single-handedly' got U.N. approval for our move on Iraq. Of course many other people were involved but President Bush had to demand the U.N. live up to it's own resolutions, and it finally did, 11 years later. Bush brought that about, sinfgle-handedly. Yes, Bush IS the Republican agenda - for the same reason. Republicans like me can 'want' many things from government (or less things in some cases, such as taxes) but unless President Bush is behind it and fights for it, it usually doesn't happen.
Thanks for the compliments, by the way, but in the future, try to think about
not using bumper-sticker slogans when addressing serious issues and don't let emotion overcome reason and logic. You'll do fine with me every time.