Is George W Bush a complete moron ?

[InfiniteNow]

GW Bush, as Governor of Texas, prided himself in working with the loyal opposition. he even used the idea in campaigning for the presidency in declaring his *Conservative with compassion* notion. when he took office, he declared a new tone in Washington, which apparently has not worked. Ma Richards asked how he won the governorship said "his conviction, when he makes a statement he sticks with it", which on the Federal level only works when historians years from now will judge his efforts. he as a person IMO has been forced to make many decisions which on the outside seem a little over the limits of what can be accomplished. others, even some i disagree with *amnesty*, *education reform* seem based on the only logical way to solve some problems. even other perceived problems, Katrina, Rumsfeld, Gonzales were not problems at all but the movements of the highly organized "loyal opposition" via their media sources and the inside the beltway political structure.

 

i am not sure where wisdom can be applied to what a president must decide and act on and a decision must be based on convictions. the wise thing in most cases, are to do nothing, let some other nation or people act on the problem when ever possible. FDR did this and the problem almost became insurmountable by 75% of the world people and destructive to the entire world. as for intelligence, he has had the best and brightest to draw from, with the experience to evaluate, solve and limit countless problems which never made the headlines.

It appears that you've bought into Bush talking point number one: Everyone else, not the man in charge, is responsible for the problems with which we are confronted. His approval ratings actually do mean something. The perception of the rest of the world is actually relevant here. Lack of credibility, continuted shifting of blame and intentional misdirection, ineffective policy, misleadership, and corruption are at the root of Bush’s problems... and you sugget that we're simply looking at things incorrectly.

 

The only thing that history will show is that too many people in the United States are still too dumb to notice the problems and do something to fix them... That too many people are content to be led astray like sheep to a wolf.

 

Hey hey, ho ho... the status quo has got to go... hey hey, ho ho... 28% is really low. Wake up.

[TheBigDog]

The only thing that history will show is that too many people in the United States are still too dumb to notice the problems and do something to fix them... That too many people are content to be led astray like sheep to a wolf.

Who is too dumb too dumb to notice which problems and fix them? Who is content to be led like sheep to a wolf, and what exactly does that refer too?

 

Hey hey, ho ho... the status quo has got to go... hey hey, ho ho... 28% is really low. Wake up.

Who is sleeping?

 

Bill

[CraigD]

IMHO, concluding that a particular recent Executive, be he Bill Clinton, George W Bush, or another, a particular Congress or Congressperson, or a particular combination of these is largely to blame for what I believe most Americans currently consider the nation’s worst problem – the Iraq War - is incorrect. Although I believe that had Al Gore been elected in 2000, this war would not have occurred, and that the war has been detrimental to American, Iraqi, and world security and wellbeing, it’s most accurate to assign its cause to a structural condition of the US government that has resulted in it being much easier, logistically and politically, for Congress to declare war, and the Executive prosecute it. This condition can be described simply: it is easy for the US government to wage war, because it maintains a large active duty and reserve military. The reason that this is possible is likewise easy to describe: the government maintains a large military because it can afford to do so; and it can afford to do so, because it has a very high income. The government’s income comes almost entirely from the federal income tax.

 

The federal income tax is possible because of Amendment 16 of the US Constitution, which was ratified in 1913.

 

IMHO, this Amendment has dangerously imbalanced the states’ and US governments, and will continue to do so until repealed. I believe its repeal would profoundly change the world, and in the long term, benefit the US and the world. Discouragingly, I know of no applicable historic precedent of a government that has granted itself drastically increased income choosing to dramatically reduce its income. I have almost no hope that the 16th Amendment will be repealed – even though this is essential if – to use metaphors that sound at home in a Star Wars movie or a John Q. Adams speech – balance is to be restored to the Republic, and America regain her soul.

[Zythryn]

Fascinating angle Craig. And one that I find myself in agreement with even though I had never considered it before.

Another part of the failure of our system, in my opinion, is the tendancy for campaign favors to result in appointments to roles that people are unqualified for. I don't point the finger solely at the Bush administration as I know this has been going on for a number of administrations. However, this one got nailed on a number of fronts when issues cropped up that the appointee either couldn't handle, or handled to the detriment of the good of the USA's standing with the world or health as a nation.

[InfiniteNow]

Who is too dumb too dumb to notice which problems and fix them? Who is content to be led like sheep to a wolf, and what exactly does that refer too?

 

 

Who is sleeping?

 

Bill

 

I am going to assume that these questions can be considered rhetorical?

[TheBigDog]

I am going to assume that these questions can be considered rhetorical?

I am thinking about your very broad aspersions. I was hoping for some clarification so I don't have to go with the presumption that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, and all followers of paths you don't approve of are sheep being led by wolves. If you don't wish to clarify that is your prerogative.

 

Bill

[CraigD]

I was hoping for some clarification so I don't have to go with the presumption that everyone who disagrees with you [infinitenow] is stupid, and all followers of paths you don't approve of are sheep being led by wolves.

If I may presume to butt into the exchange between TBD and Infinitenow, I don’t believe that people who hold politically positions differing from the moderately “left wing” one held, I think, by the greatest number of hypographers, are stupid, gullible (“sheep”), or doomed to an bad end (“being led by wolves”). Many very right wing people, here at hypography and in general, are clearly intelligent, capable, accomplished, wise and good people. Furthermore, left-wingers and right-wingers can get along courteously, and even like one another!

 

Nonetheless, I believe there is a essential psychological difference between people commonly described as “right wing”, and those described as “left wing”. Although, as with psychology in general, the difference is complicated in detail, I believe it’s accurately described by George Lackoff’s ”strict father/nurturing parent” model. I also believe that the “nurturing parent conceptual metaphor” associated with left-wing personalities is better disposed toward most scientific and mathematical pursuits, and that the practice of scientific and formal methods tend to influence their practitioners to favor this metaphor over the “strict parent conceptual metaphor” associated with right-wing personalities.

[InfiniteNow]

I am thinking about your very broad aspersions. I was hoping for some clarification so I don't have to go with the presumption that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, and all followers of paths you don't approve of are sheep being led by wolves. If you don't wish to clarify that is your prerogative.

 

Bill

 

Thanks for asking a more focussed question Bill. I really do not adopt a stance such as that you described (at least, I certainly do not intend to).

 

In sum, I find those who disagree with the vast majority of the current Presidential Administrations activities, actions, and decisions tend to at least acknowledge some acceptance of the positive accomplishments made by the administration. "Hey, I disagree with A, B, and C, but I must say, I'm really glad they did X," for example.

 

However, I concurrently find that those who support the vast majority of the current Presidential Administrations activities tend to refuse to acknowledge areas of potential concern or error, and focus almost purely on attacking those who disagree. It is reminiscent in some ways of the approach taken by many religious cults to keep the "congregation" of a single mind. The tactic leaves enormous distaste in my mouth, and it's frankly confusing to me, so often my responses to these individuals come across terse.

 

Now, of course I'm speaking in trends, and not all people fit so neatly into one category or the other. However, if I were to to discuss with someone who has consistently stood up proudly behind the administration, the likelihood is that they would quickly derive some other label as an attempt to discredit me, or label the information I present as fallacious, despite any supporting evidence I might present. Most commonly, those who support the admistration choose to derogatorily label all those who call out obvious concerns with the actions of our president.

 

The post to which I responded, prompting your initial inquiry, struck me as little more than a person regurgitating to others that which they'd been told to say. I arrived at this understanding primarily by having read other posts by the posting member here in these forums and having a fairly robust sense of their stance on many topics.

 

The funny thing to me, really, is that most supporters who fall into this camp do not tend to support the president with fact and example, but more often attack the character of those who feel we as a nation/planet could do much better than the current administration... and even provide examples as to how. This approach is contrary to the essence of a scientific mind, and IMO is also a poor method of supporting the country and planet as a whole.

 

Does this help to address what I thought was a rhetorical question?

 

 

Cheers.

[Michaelangelica]

to deal with these issues as a priority given his position of elevated responsibility.

Q- Is George W Bush a complete moron ?

A-Yes

next question

The earth-stuffed- need another planet real soon.

next question?

[TheFaithfulStone]

Although I'm not normally a fan of PJ O'Rourke, I think he put the difference best.

 

The government has a legal monopoly on force. This terrifies conservatives and comforts liberals.

 

It certainly comforts me - what kind of world would it be if Wal-Mart could come to my house and taser me for not buying enough cheap plastic crap?

 

TFS

[Buffy]

It certainly comforts me - what kind of world would it be if Wal-Mart could come to my house and taser me for not buying enough cheap plastic crap?

What do you mean? Of course they do! Those moronic "have a nice day" smiley face-slashing-prices commercials on TV are just short of waterboarding....

 

One of the most interesting principles of neo-conservatism is the belief that its "good for America" to let the companies who contribute the most political dollars to be allowed to create virtual monopolies (SBC/AT&T), and have special laws passed to allow them to extract more money from consumers (in financial services, weakening of consumer protections and defunding of government oversight)... Pretty soon you will have the complete freedom to buy all of your worldly needs exclusively from Walmart. Aren't you happy that "conservatism" saved the world from Communism where you could only buy your goods from one store and lack of competition made all goods shoddy? What a triumph of capitalism!

 

We do not torture,

Buffy

[TheFaithfulStone]

:doh:

 

I weep for the world. I WEEP.

 

TFS

[jackson33]

Infinite; guess you know something i do not, since i am totally unaware of Bush blaming anyone else on any of his political problems. as a people, we do tend to follow our leaders. we also as a people know our leaders are no less flawed than ourselves and capable of error. you really don't want the historian viewpoints of error made before, during or after WWII. the outcome was what it was, with all those very costly (lives & dollars) rarely mentioned.

if they were vital, FDR would be the most hated and Bush's error's like mistakes made at a poker table or of little importance.

 

why is that 28% figure so important to you. my faith in country is as strong today as ever, feeling our system of democracy the best. the fact that 23% of folks approve of Congress or the presidents approval rating tell me only were in a political race environment which will change little for 14-16 months or so. this alone should tell you Bush is acting on convictions, not the wishes of the media. he knows full well, if the Iraq problems end today another issue will take its place. IMO he also knows the results of inaction...

 

Buffy; what in the world does any advertising campaign have to do with your right to purchase anything, from anyplace you want. today you can buy anything imaginable over the web alone, to say nothing of the thriving US small business found in every town. if its the 2-8k dollar saving for the folks that buy from WM, then accept the fact not all of us can afford the cost of the smaller independent operation and there efficiency. i might mention *Dollar General*, which build its stores as close to WM as possible and grown 10 fold in the past 40 years. i wont bother with those other thousands which in lessor degrees have done the same.

[TheFaithfulStone]

i might mention *Dollar General*, which build its stores as close to WM as possible and grown 10 fold in the past 40 years. i wont bother with those other thousands which in lessor degrees have done the same

 

I gotta have a citation for that - because I don't think that's true. At least the part about "as close to WM as possible."

 

As for the ad campaign thing, I think you misunderstood. Buffy was saying that Wal-Marts smiley face campaign is akin to being tortured. (I'd have to agree with that.)

 

Anyway, the POINT of the little story was that Large Business, which can buy access to political power through campaign donations increasingly dominate a market sector. As evidence of this - witness recent 'eminent domain' such as Kelo v. New London, which basically allows the government to take your land so they can give it somebody else who'll pay more taxes.

 

In many jurisdictions, Wal-Mart is given tax-breaks, land and utility subsidies, etc, because each SuperCenter brings on the order of 2,000 jobs to an area. (Crappy, minimum wage jobs, but jobs nonetheless.) The mom and pop store rarely merits this kind of economic consideration.

 

This is the mechanism (IMO) through which in the nightmare scenario, Wal-Mart becomes large and powerful enough where they simply acquire any competitor who offers something interesting, or squash by political clout those who don't.

 

TFS

[Buffy]

Buffy; what in the world does any advertising campaign have to do with your right to purchase anything, from anyplace you want.

I apologize if I was not clear, but I was not making that association. I was simply making a highly sarcastic statement that watching their innane commercials was tantamount to torture. You're quite right that you are free to "buy from anyone you want" but my commentary is on the issue of the fact that formation of monopolies and oligopolies is not only bad for consumers, it produces inefficient markets in the long run, and it is the government's role to prevent the formation of dysfunctional markets, as seen by our own and other countries efforts in preventing the development of trusts going back over 100 years.

 

There is no end to the evidence that over the last 30 years, neo-con (and I assure you this is *not* a Goldwater/Reagan-style conservative belief) philosophy has moved to eliminate any action on the part of market leaders to buy out, merge or destroy competition through anti-competitive practices such as selling products below cost.

 

Contrary to your assertion, the mom & pop operation is dying in every quarter as they are attacked by larger companies. 20 years ago 90% of all books were sold through independent booksellers, now 90% are sold through 3 companies: Borders, B&N, and Amazon. While these three are stupid enough not to "act cooperatively" (which is not the same as "collusion") like the oil companies, and they are able to provide wider access to mid-tier books, it has virtually destroyed boutique book publishing of specialty or limited interest books because of the fact that the buyers at the big three won't touch a title that is not going to sell at least in the tens of thousands.

 

Because the current administration is not even interested in stopping the mergers of behemoths in oligopolistic industries (SBC/AT&T is 2 acquisitions away from being the sole provider of land-line access--which is fundamentally different than cable in important ways), we have many industries that simply do not provide customers with even adequate service and can charge uterly outrageous prices and impose highly restrictive and undesirable policies.

 

As any economist will tell you, monopolistic and oligarchical industries do not seek efficiencies because they don't have to. They just raise prices and provide less service...kind of like the neo-cons claim Liberals do with taxes and government services! They do not innovate, and they make choices based almost exclusively on short-term profits, leaving it to the government to come to the rescue (or people to merely suffer) when bad short-term decisions result in market wide problems. Witness the oil industry where the oil companies have no motivation to carry excess capacity (because with little competition, they know their competitors do not have any either, so they won't really lose out if they don't), so we end up with disasters like Katrina causing massive spikes in prices.

 

I know its much easier to believe that Economics is a Liberal Value, but we still have these problems to deal with no matter which party you register as.

 

The point here being that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney's attitude that there's nothing wrong with letting their buddies consolidate markets to the point where there's no competition (oil, telecoms) or worse, think that there's nothing wrong with companies that manipulate the laws and game markets for no apparent benefit other than to force people to give them money(Enron), is all really bad for the rest of us, and it is NOT a partisan issue.

 

i might mention *Dollar General*, which build its stores as close to WM as possible and grown 10 fold in the past 40 years. i wont bother with those other thousands which in lessor degrees have done the same.

You might think Dollar General is big and successful, but they're in the process of being acquired by KK&R which acquires companies in many cases to rip them apart and dispose of their assets and their stock has been pretty much stagnant for over 5 years. To Walmart which is *fifty times larger*, Dollar General is a tiny niche player specializing in products costing less than $10, and I'm sure their strategy is "we'll get around to crushing them later." I'd hardly call this proof of healthy competition in the retail business which has been consolidating like crazy, and is also down to a handful of major segment players: Walmart, Target, and Federated (Macy's and just about every other department store).

 

Economics is a family value,

Buffy

[jackson33]

Many of Wal Marts first stores, especially in smaller towns were single standing buildings where neighboring land was available. Dollar General, Family Dollar and many other small nation companies including the grocery chains, bought and built close by. WM then went to being parts of a shopping center, where they owned and managed the entire complex. this became more and more through the development of Super Centers. Sam's Club also is sometimes found very near by the WM Stores. there may be a modification due in closeness to WM, however Dollar General has never feared the Company and prefers to build off WM traffic with a great deal of success.

 

i suppose Buffy was reflecting a dislike for WM advertisements. but my point was and remains, no one is forced to shop, work or even drive by a store. personally i am getting a little fed up with medication advertisements. to solve a reasonably simple problem it would seem you subjecting yourself to many other problems.

 

where i agree emanate domain is used, for selfish reasons, that devaluing a property for environmental reason (swamp/endangered) is wrong. in this case business is not acting alone and that government was placed there by the people involved.

 

yes, WM and many business (small or large) receive breaks to move into an area. i recall a major event a couple years ago, as Boeing wanted to move its headquarter and several smaller manufacturing plants. on the HQ, i thought Houston and Chicago were going to give them the city to gain this business, which Chicago eventually won. the same thing goes on on the international level, even to where the (Summer/Winter) Olympics go. i see nothing wrong with this...

 

Crappy jobs, is subjective. there 12-16.00 wage minimum in various locations with some benefits must be appealing to many. many stores receive 100's of applications for each job and i doubt any of there stores advertise for workers once opened. keep in mind this size operation is also looking for management which comes generally from the workers of near by stores.

 

as for tactics used by business. shelf space, location in a store and exclusivity are fought for in any store by every merchandise provider in that store. its been my experience, sales and profits rule the day. the manufacturers, distributors in setting the wholesale price, determines the outcome, not the store itself. a good example would be Coke or Pepsi, which pay out millions to be the sole provider of cold drinks and occasionally you will see Budweiser, bread companies, pastry, ice cream and others as exclusive suppliers.

 

one last point. Walton at one time had ONE store, just as hundreds of thousand of people have today around the world. in most places especially in the US they could become a WM. a little credit is sometimes due success.

[jackson33]

Buffy; merger and acquisition activity, is at an unusually high level, but with a purpose. the fear is with a Democratic President and Congress this activity will be slowed or even stopped. add this to the current values of business (very high) and you have the perfect storm for getting out of, while the getting is good. to say nothing what future is seen by many including myself for the climate of business activity during an inflationary period.

 

aside from the above M & A, are done for various reasons. conglomerates like GE, will buy out most anything, merge what they can into another currently owned and discard the rest. others like Newscorp, Disney and Time Warner try to build revenue in an already existing format. many others are to eliminate competition, which is rarely successful and the reason these are rarely permitted by any Congress. another is emanate failure of one or the other w/o a merger or being bought out. Sears buy out of K-Mart or the merger under Ed Lambert, prevented the sure failure of one or both. many times what you see as some form of greed, is simply the hope of survival.

 

You mentioned books, which i think you will find more a WWW advance than the suffering Book Stores. even Amazon book business is less than 5% in sales totals. Most schools and many individuals buy books over the WEB for practical reasons as well. Since at one time i worked for Hasting's, which was started by a major seller of Music, Books and Recorded entertainment, i can tell you the cost of transportation or if you prefer the buying power of a retailer, makes all the difference. warehousing, by a corporation or in many cases trucking companies has become a big business.

 

as for Mom and Pops, in general. i research for a few other and myself for products over the WEB for their business. sometimes just to get a price fix and sometimes for the eventual purchase. i don't care what the product is, play ground equipment (my latest) to fencing, coins or any items you can imagine, there are hundred if not thousands of places offering products to fill needs of the public. i am guessing, but i would say 90% are small business which either started up on the WEB or trying to improve their sales from a single brick/mortar store. this can often be drop shipments which is an efficient method. (no inventory)