"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."Pres. George W. Bush, on the last six months in office
Rob is the biggest threat. Let's sic the entire FBI on him now!!!
In a Republic, you have to deal with various Congressmen's blathering and stalling, and the 'opposition,' and special interests, and polls, and public opinion, and other such nonsense which only keeps you from doing what needs to be done and slows the process of government.
In a Dictatorship, you just order it and it gets done. And if anybody stands in the way, you shoot them. And if public opinion goes against you... well, you don't let it, as you make sure the media always praises your vision and far-thinking programs... or you purge the media.
It's BAD, but it IS more efficient.
If Bill Clinton had said something along those lines, the GOP and its unofficial spokespersons (including dear old Rush) would've been screaming about how he was planning on using the military to sieze absolute control and disband the Congress.
Truthful or not, it's an inappropriate thing for the President -- as Commander in Chief of the Army, Air Force and Navy -- to say.
It's funny when someone here (*cough*Rob!*cough*) talks about what he'd like to do as dictator -- he sounds like he'd be a rather reasonable dictator. But, then again, unless Rob's got a secret staging area underneath his library with an army of shock troopers, I don't think it's going to happen any time soon ]
Which gives me an idea for a story ... "The Librarian's Secret Army" ... about a middle-school age kid who discovers the mild-mannered librarian is planning on world domination, and has a secret base in underground caverns with a whole shock army and ... well, who knows?
Then again, Dubya also got shit for saying the military coup in Pakistan was a good thing. While certainly it was a good thing, the President (well, at the time, Presidential candidate) shouldn't be publicly endorsing the military overthrow of the elected government -- no matter what the reasons behind it. It sends the wrong message.
This, of course, is all my opinion. But George should be more careful of what he says. Because, again, a lot of the country is still rather bitter with the man ...
[ August 01, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
[ August 01, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
You're, what, thirty? It's about time you stopped living in your little fantasy world and looked at facts. Bush won. Get over it and grow up.
I tend to agree with him, I think the majority of voters are too dumb to think for themselves, instead they're fooled by the elabrate web of media mis-informations.
Your post is worthless Omega off the point and is ignored. Post something on topic or shut up. Otherwise you make yourself look like an imbecile...more so than normal anyway.
quote:
If Bill Clinton had said something along those lines,
...it would never have been reported.
quote:
...it would never have been reported.
Oh, right, I forgot: the liberal media would cover it up. Proof positive that the Republican party is filled with paranoid imbiciles who conveniently ignore each and every occasion when the media goes after Democrats (they must've slept through the Lewinsky thing) ... who only hear Jay Leno or Letterman when they make Republican jokes, and not the Democratic jokes ... who firmly believe that Saturday Night Live has never impersonated a Democratic President.
Paranoid.
Anyway -- back to the point.
Omega, Jay's right. Either post on topic, or don't post at all. I'm sick and tired of hearing you screaming about shit. What makes it even worse, is that you scream and bitch about how the Supreme Court is overstepping its Constitutional role, yet you say nothing when in doing so (by your definition) is gets Dubya into office. Your position is clearly hipocritical, and, dude, you need to get a life. Or get laid. Or some friends, maybe ... ? Either way, get over yourself.
[ August 02, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]
Especially if you think that Leno, Letterman, and the cast of SNL are "the Media."
Yes, the Media DID sleep through the Lewinsky scandal. Or, more accurately, the Lewinski bit was all they DIDN'T sleep through. Lurid tales of bj's in the oval office, yes, that's interesting. That'll get ratings. But do you remember the last TV news interview with Juanita Broadrick? I don't.
Fo2: You're paranoid. I hope you realize that before you have to go on medication for it.
A: "You're paranoid."
Yeah, THAT'S a rational response.
quote:
woman who claimed that Clinton raped her
Key word. CLAIMED. Paula Jones CLAIMED Clinton raped her. Elizabeth Gracen did something consentual with Clinton. They both got lots of media coverage. Or, did you forget about Paula Jones ... ? I mean, next you'll be screaming about the liberal media since Condit's air-line stewardess didn't get enough air-time.
Although that brings up an interesting point...
How many sexual assaults does a man need to be accused of before people start going 'Hmm, I see a pattern here!'?
Well, if you're a Republican, like Clarence Thomas or Bob Packwood, one is all it takes.
But Clinton's still going strong with at least 3 under his belt (pun intended).
I'll admit, accusation doesn't equal guilt... but when a man gets accused over and over and over again, and people DON'T start taking notice, that's irresponsible.
Speaking of which:
quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Journalist David Brock made his name as a conservative muckraker, including an attack on Anita Hill whose accusations of sexual harassment nearly derailed the nomination of Clarence Thomas as Supreme Court justice.Now, in a new book, Brock says he knowingly lied when he defended Thomas in a critical review of another book on the Thomas confirmation hearings. But Brock's former allies say his credibility has been badly damaged.
Sounds like a conservative bias in this case. But, then again, you don't see me crying about it.
And now, to get us back on topic (although Omega and Rob are doing a commendable job trying to get us off topic...), I will paraphrase Rob:
How many times does a man need to be accused of being an idiot before people start going 'Hmm, I see a pattern here!'?
Apparently, what's good enough for Clinton isn't good enough for George "I Succeeded Because of Daddy's Name!" Bush.
[ August 03, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
[ August 03, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
"I'll admit, accusation doesn't equal guilt... but when a man gets accused over and over and over again, and people DON'T start taking notice, that's irresponsible."
Erm... I think just about everyone in this country, and most people out of it, know that Clinton's one big walking hard-on. What do you mean when you say no-one's noticing?
*gasp*
Brilliant job the media did of hiding that. Next you'll be shocking me by revealing that he sold weapons to a country you're not on best terms with...