BUSH QUIT GOLF FOR IRAQ

[Munchkin03]

I'm probably just left of center, and I don't really care if he plays golf. Hell, being POTUS is a tough, stressful, job that ages you (look at pre 9/11 photos of Bush), and I hope that he is able to relax. If playing golf does that and prevents him from keeling over from a stroke from stress, great!

I remember hearing that same "statistic" about Clinton as well; that job is a 24/7 thing that they can't take breaks from. Plus, just because someone isn't at the White House doesn't mean that they aren't working.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I'm probably just left of center, and I don't really care if he plays golf. Hell, being POTUS is a tough, stressful, job that ages you (look at pre 9/11 photos of Bush), and I hope that he is able to relax. If playing golf does that and prevents him from keeling over from a stroke from stress, great!

I remember hearing that same "statistic" about Clinton as well; that job is a 24/7 thing that they can't take breaks from. Plus, just because someone isn't at the White House doesn't mean that they aren't working.

according to the article, clinton has taken a third of what bush has taken in the same amount of time.

I'm by no means a Bush apologist, and I find some people's obsession with demonizing him quite entertaining, but I will say this about Olberman's video. He spends the first part of his video on a tirade, claiming that Bush makes a fear-mongering threat that if a Democrat is elected, an 9/11 type attack on America is eminent.

If you watch the video, Bush was asked what the "worst-case/doomsday scenario" would be, if we pull out of Iraq. Well, he says the Doomsday scenario would be another attack by terrorists on America. Can anyone argue that indeed, that would be the worst case scenario? Bush doesn't say, "oh its not doomsday, its certain!". He just replied that if we pull out, that would be the worst-case result. I happen to agree.

The rest of the video is KO at his over-the-top, bombastic best. Will he even have viewers after Bush leaves office?

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

If working two jobs at minimum wage only lets you live, how precisely are you to find money and time to go to school on top of that?

Oh noes the government would have to give them money, and then they'd be living off of the "hard working Americans" or something.

No, they wouldn't be living off the hard working americans, they would be using the money for the betterment of themselves and then they would in turn contribute far more money back into the system than they take out. If the minimum wage is set too high, its going to cause inflation and then we'll be in the same boat with the poor people griping about the minimum wage being too low. Go to school get an education.

And while I think I've provided a pretty solid counter argument, I suppose you will have some kind of hole to poke in my argument, so go ahead, shoot.

[shinerbock]

I really don't know anything about the vacation issue. Maybe Bush has been lazy in that regard, but I think a lot of white house personnel would say (from most books I've read on these subjects) that Bush approaches the Presidency in a much more serious and professional manner than Clinton.

I'm not really supportive enough of Bush to defend him generally, but I think he has worked pretty tirelessly, regardless of how you feel about what he was working on or what resulted.

There are good and bad Presidents, but I highly doubt any of them can objectively be called lazy or uncommitted.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

Sorry.
Yes, I was asking you, Shiner, to explain why you think that Drolefille's comment was a "dangerous sentiment."

I think it is a dangerous sentiment because I perceive it to be an argument for economic equality and social engineering. This is beating a dead horse for me, but I think the anti-enterprise instincts of many American liberals are very dangerous for this country.

I don't believe the government should work to ensure we're all financially equal. I certainly don't believe the government should do this at the expense of one segment of society. Whenever the government decides to take something from one citizen on the rationale that "they don't really need it," I get pretty concerned.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by Juspreet

OMG, he is really weird...

Who?

[Leslie Anne]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I think it is a dangerous sentiment because I perceive it to be an argument for economic equality and social engineering. This is beating a dead horse for me, but I think the anti-enterprise instincts of many American liberals are very dangerous for this country.

I don't believe the government should work to ensure we're all financially equal.

Thank you for your response, Shiner.

Of course, I can't speak for Drolefille (and she'd probably strangle me if I tried to) so I can only offer my own perspective on her response. Nate said that people should get an education. The response was that not everyone can afford an education. Then there was a sarcastic comment about the government helping and what a catastrophe that would be.

I do not believe that anyone here is suggesting pure economic equality. I certainly am not. There is, however, an argument to be made that increasing the potential for economic security (not equality) is good for any society.

You also might be surprised to find that most liberals (including myself) are not anti-enterprise at all. I think you're taking general ideas and forcing them into extremes that aren't actually a reality.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

Thank you for your response, Shiner.

Of course, I can't speak for Drolefille (and she'd probably strangle me if I tried to) so I can only offer my own perspective on her response. Nate said that people should get an education. The response was that not everyone can afford an education. Then there was a sarcastic comment about the government helping and what a catastrophe that would be.

I do not believe that anyone here is suggesting pure economic equality. I certainly am not. There is, however, an argument to be made that increasing the potential for economic security (not equality) is good for any society.

You also might be surprised to find that most liberals (including myself) are not anti-enterprise at all. I think you're taking general ideas and forcing them into extremes that aren't actually a reality.

My only argument is that if we let people settle in on the government spoon feeding them, they will take it and nothing will change. There is no reason that probably 90% of Americans can't go to college or take an apprenticeship to learn a trade. They aren't giving people much motivation to further their education. I don't mind helping a few people, but completely supporting able bodied workers because the minimum wage isn't high enough when there are plenty of jobs that pay over minimum wage but people are too lazy to take them, that's ridiculous. Hell, even Wal-Mart pays over minimum wage.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I'm probably just left of center, and I don't really care if he plays golf. Hell, being POTUS is a tough, stressful, job that ages you (look at pre 9/11 photos of Bush), and I hope that he is able to relax. If playing golf does that and prevents him from keeling over from a stroke from stress, great!

I remember hearing that same "statistic" about Clinton as well; that job is a 24/7 thing that they can't take breaks from. Plus, just because someone isn't at the White House doesn't mean that they aren't working.

Exactly my sentiments. There are tons of things one can criticize about the Bush presidency, I just can't get too riled up about this one.

[DSTCHAOS]

Quitting golf is a good PR move but he shouldn't have quit golf.

I remember when Condoleeza Rice was criticized for going shoe shopping or something not too long after 9-11 (or was it Hurricane Katrina...too many disasters in this admin to keep up with). Geezus...let the woman shoe shop....

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by wreckingcrew

I'm by no means a Bush apologist, and I find some people's obsession with demonizing him quite entertaining, but I will say this about Olberman's video. He spends the first part of his video on a tirade, claiming that Bush makes a fear-mongering threat that if a Democrat is elected, an 9/11 type attack on America is eminent.

If you watch the video, Bush was asked what the "worst-case/doomsday scenario" would be, if we pull out of Iraq. Well, he says the Doomsday scenario would be another attack by terrorists on America. Can anyone argue that indeed, that would be the worst case scenario? Bush doesn't say, "oh its not doomsday, its certain!". He just replied that if we pull out, that would be the worst-case result. I happen to agree.

The rest of the video is KO at his over-the-top, bombastic best. Will he even have viewers after Bush leaves office?

Pulling out of anything too early is always guaranteed to get you a dirty look

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

You also might be surprised to find that most liberals (including myself) are not anti-enterprise at all. I think you're taking general ideas and forcing them into extremes that aren't actually a reality.

I think you're right, in that most liberals certainly wouldn't claim to be anti-enterprise. However, when a large portion of the left (as is the case) advocates for some form of "undoing" with regard to the results of a an enterprise economic system, I consider that an assault on free enterprise.

You could make the argument that our economic system envisions some amount of governmental leveling, but I have doubts that I would share that perspective.