General Forums

Naailo · Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 1144 Location:

I'm not sure what to say about it, to be honest. Part of me is saying "good". Because, well, the guy's a douche. Part of me almost worries Bush sans someone telling him what to do is even more frightening.

Still, took me by surprise that's for sure.
_________________
"Kick a hole in the speaker, pull the plug, then I jet."

toothpastefordinner.com

Gavina · Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:42 am Post subject:

I'm suprised he remained this long after the mid-terms. He went through two Presidential elections and two sets of midterms. It's a wonder he's not the one with a pacemaker and several open heart surgeries. To be honest, I didn't even know the man HAD a family.
_________________
Gavina Andraste
If Fred Thompson had been at Thermopylae, the movie would have been called 1. Ron Paul wouldn't have been there at all.

RBPierce · Hoth Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 1119 Location:

Naailo · Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 1144 Location:

Oh come on now. You don't really need me to explain it do you? The man's been the mastermind behind an administration that will, to me, forever be known more than anything else for it's merciless lack of accountability, and he himself might be the most abusive person in the administration in that respect. His manner says to me that he doesn't work for the people, and certainly doesn't answer to them, and to me the people should be the central focus of government. But that might be just me.

Also, I have an awesome internal douchebag detector. And he, sir, is a douchebag.
_________________
"Kick a hole in the speaker, pull the plug, then I jet."

toothpastefordinner.com

RBPierce · Hoth Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 1119 Location:

He DOESN'T work for the people- he works for the President. That is his job. You seem to be confused between the duty of an elected official and the duty of a government employee... kind of like the guy who tells the officer who pulls them over that "I pay your salary!"

To boil it down, you think he is a douchebag because he works for the president (and because he consistently outsmarts his DNC counterparts).

Got it Razz

_________________

Powad · Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:10 pm Post subject: Re:

olorin · Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 2646 Location:

I just laugh at the hate anymore. The same people who bash the right about hate mongering have fabricated this mythical being of Rove whom I'm sure they tell scary stories of to their children at night when they go to bed. No fact backs any of this up just wild, hate filled supposition that excuses the most derogatory and vile things being slung at him by the purveyors of fairness and equality.
_________________
"These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." -SCOTUS- Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. 1892

Powad · Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:56 pm Post subject:

same goes for cheney as well.. the only people that seem slightly immune to the "evil empire" type stuff are/were rice and powell
_________________
Currently reading: The Wanderer's Tale (Book 1: The Annals of Lindormyn) by David Bilsborough

And: Make Love the Bruce Campbell Way by Bruce Campbell

Galadren · Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject: Re:

Corbijn · Booze Peddler Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 1356 Location:

I always thought it was because Rove was notorious for taking smear politics to an entirely new level, not because he was white.

Or secondary reason, because he was responsible for putting Bush in power. Maybe that's actually the primary reason.

Point is, I don't think it's because he's white.
_________________
Matt
http://www.myspace.com/lifewithoutamicrowave

olorin · Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 2646 Location:

What example can you give of Rove or Bush engaging in smear politics? Given the accusations and insults hurled at both of them over the last 4 years I'd consider their response or lack thereof to be rather remarkable.
_________________
"These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." -SCOTUS- Holy Trinity Church v. U.S. 1892

Naailo · Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 1144 Location:

Fucking shit I wrote a whole reply last and thought I posted it, but I didn't. Let's see if I can sum it up, because it's not like anyone's getting convinced.

1. Let's not be all obtuse here right. We were all alive for the last two presidential elections and know what kind of a ship mr. puppet master runs. Do we remember the shit that was said about McCain? There's your smear politics example.

2. And the main issue I have with him is that, since he has been referred to by Bush's own administration as the mastermind (architect, etc), hence blame lies with him by their own volition.

3. He's ran the administration with a complete and total disregard for anything and anyone that exists outside of the White House walls. They feel no need to explain themselves or justify anything they do to anyone, and he's been the worst of them all, despite the publics (and Congress') demands.

Let's be frank here. Karl Rove doesn't feel he answers to anyone. You guys can hate all you want, but the fact is no Presidency has been so arrogant and unwilling to defend the *horrible* job they've done than this one, and by their own accounts that's largely Karl Rove's doing.

4. Oh and cheer him on all you want, but his masterminding ultimately resulted in losing Congress and the lowest approval ratings in, like, ever. If he's the architect of it, then he can be remembered as building what ended up being one of the most hated administrations in this country's documented history.
_________________
"Kick a hole in the speaker, pull the plug, then I jet."

toothpastefordinner.com

RBPierce · Hoth Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 1119 Location:

Let's be frank here. Karl Rove answers only to the President. That is how it should be.

Let's be even more frank- you hate Karl Rove because he helped get George Bush elected, twice, and you hate George Bush. You're a poor loser Cry

_________________

olorin · Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 2646 Location:

Naailo · Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 1144 Location:

Oh for fuck's sake I totally replied to this like an hour ago ARGH FUCKING WIRELESS anyway.

If I was still going to be bitter about the past two elections, I'd be aiming my spite more at the Democratic leadership. Karl Rove may be a great mastermind, I don't know. It's hard to tell how good an athlete someone is when they're competing in the special olympics.

But then again, you know that, didn't you? I mean, I do hope you're just trying to get a rise out of me, because if not then you're not as smart as I thought you were.

You know very well how arrogant and dismissive this administration is, and were it a liberal White House you would be completely up in arms about it's abuse of executive privileged. It's reached a point where some of his staunchest past supporters, on this board an in general, can no longer excuse their behavior. And last time I checked, stubbornness isn't a virtue.

The fact is, Karl Rove *is* a smart man, and he did play the country like a violin. He demonized the left wing, polarized the country, and created an administration that rose to the top on a cloud of fear. The high approval ratings were indisputably thanks to 9/11, and while it took only a short time for him to get the rest of the world pissed off at Bush, they managed to keep the country from turning on them for a good while after that. In the end though, you're now in the minority. By far.

As for your "defending their job would be smear politics" angle: it's not smear politics to answer a question. Or at least to answer it with something other than "I don't recall". It's an insult to the country's intelligence the way they've handled their "scandals". Rumsfeld, Chaney, Gonsalez, and so on - again, I've been alive for 4 Presidencies now so I can say that at least in recent memory, that kind of smugness.

And again, people blame Rove because BY THE ADMINISTRATIONS OWN DECLARATIONS he's been made out to be THE man behind the plan. Not just in the elections, but in how the administration is run. He's present at policy meetings. He's got his fingers in everything. Don't try and downplay it now, because it's by their own admission.

Oh and as for the Dems newsletter, oh I believe it. Thank Karl Rove. He played the game so dirty he eventually got everyone to sink to his level and beat him at his own game. And they did.

So, I say good riddance to the man I feel had no small part in modern politics reaching an all new low.
_________________
"Kick a hole in the speaker, pull the plug, then I jet."

toothpastefordinner.com

olorin · Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 2646 Location:

olorin · Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 2646 Location:

Corbijn · Booze Peddler Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 1356 Location:

I'm only going to get into this to make two points;

1) Naailo is probably right about the nation having never been as divided as it is currently. I'm honestly a little surprised that you made that a point of contention Olorin. The only closer election than 2004 was 2000, no? And most public opinion polls I recall having seen the past few years have shown unequivocally that this country is very divided. Now who's "fault" this is is clearly debatable, but I'm a little surprised you fought that point.

2) It's very poor logic to use "they did it" as evidence that something is ok. It's something both sides on this board to constantly, and it really makes for completely unconvincing and obviously partisan debates without even a whiff of trying to understand the other sides' position. Something is either right or wrong, regardless of if "your side" is only responding to "their side." It's the intellectual equivalent of a bunch of Americans hi-jacking planes on Sept. 12 and flying them into Mecca and that being lauded as a just response.
_________________
Matt
http://www.myspace.com/lifewithoutamicrowave

Fyro · Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 1792 Location:

The nation has been divided much more harshly in many instances in the past. The first example that springs to mind is the Civil War, of course.

You're right that responding "the other side does it" isn't a very good argument.

An equally invalid argument is the idea that because the nation is divided, one or both sides of the division should change their position in order to "meet in the middle" or otherwise end the division. The people of our nation being polarized around two general ideas isn't evidence that the Administration has acted irresponsibly. Nor is it evidence that either side is wrong.

It is only a good thing to be united in a righteous direction. Uniting behind the wrong goal or belief is worse than being divided between a wrong goal and a right one, or worse than being divided between two wrong goals. Our top-level objective, at the crest of our hierarchy of goals, should be to do what is correct, not to seek agreement with others.
_________________

Naailo · Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 1144 Location:

Okay, here's another example.

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers"

And if you're going to argue that the country isn't polarized...well, then quite honestly I don't know what the fuck to do with you. It's split down the middle and it's split hard, with a lot of anger, resentment, blah blah blah you know all this already so whatever.
_________________
"Kick a hole in the speaker, pull the plug, then I jet."

toothpastefordinner.com

RBPierce · Hoth Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 1119 Location:

"Naailo is probably right about the nation having never been as divided as it is currently."

It's been divided worse, but it is at least as divided as it has been since the 70s. Naailo is wrong, however, in blaming this on the Bush administration or on Rove in particular. This division began when Gore lost the 2000 election- we still have lots of democrats screaming that the election was stolen, and those same people hate- HATE- Bush, and they hate anyone or anything mildly associated with him... hence the Rove hatred. The 2000 election is when the division began, and Bush's blame in it lies in that he won the election over their golden boy, Gore.

That is not something for which Bush needs to apologize.
_________________

Fyro · Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 1792 Location:

olorin · Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 2646 Location:

Ailionora · Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 120 Location:

Not that I personally was there (I'm not quite that old) but I'm pretty sure Truman wasn't up close and personal with the media about his administrative and executive decisions either.

I honestly dont know if the rumor about the Bush admin being the "most secretive" in history is accurate or just media hype. I am sure that this is not the most divisive period in our history though, and I'm also sure Bush is not the first president to make decisions and then NOT give a full press release explaining his every move.

I think Lincoln was probably considered a tad polarizing during his time.
_________________

Naailo · Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 1144 Location:

My personal belief is that the 2000 CAMPAIGN is what pushed the country into this drastic polarization, not the results of the election. After all, the results of the election was just about 50-50, so I don't see how the results of the election divided the country before the election itself.

And Olorin, you know damn well that's a demonizing statement, and the reason you don't see anything wrong with it is because you've totally bought into the shit that liberals are a bunch of pansies that want ot breastfeed terrorists. If you truly believe there's nothing wrong with it, then you're a prime example to me of just how effective Bush's administration's brainwashing of so much of the country has been. And again, by their own admission, Rove is the man behind it all, so hence he gets blamed.

And Rove having a hand in policy is pretty common knowledge. I do apologize for not citing sources right now (running out the door), but the information is out there.
_________________
"Kick a hole in the speaker, pull the plug, then I jet."

toothpastefordinner.com

RBPierce · Hoth Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 1119 Location:

Lincoln WORKED to polarize the nation, but that's a subject for a different thread Smile

_________________

Naailo · Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 1144 Location:

My personal belief is that the 2000 CAMPAIGN is what pushed the country into this drastic polarization, not the results of the election. After all, the results of the election was just about 50-50, so I don't see how the results of the election divided the country before the election itself.

And Olorin, you know damn well that's a demonizing statement, and the reason you don't see anything wrong with it is because you've totally bought into the shit that liberals are a bunch of pansies that want ot breastfeed terrorists. If you truly believe there's nothing wrong with it, then you're a prime example to me of just how effective Bush's administration's brainwashing of so much of the country has been. And again, by their own admission, Rove is the man behind it all, so hence he gets blamed.

And Rove having a hand in policy is pretty common knowledge. I do apologize for not citing sources right now (running out the door), but the information is out there.
_________________
"Kick a hole in the speaker, pull the plug, then I jet."

toothpastefordinner.com

Ailionora · Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 120 Location:

Geez Naailo, losing one post earlier doesnt mean you have to double post now!
_________________

olorin · Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 2646 Location:

RBPierce · Hoth Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 1119 Location:

Naailo · Joined: 28 Jun 2005 Posts: 1144 Location:

You may be eager for the circle jerk RB, but I don't consider another post from a conservative trying to dictate to me what I and other liberals think to be an out of the park hit.

Olorin, you're wrong, plain and simple. Your post affirms that you've bought into the shit and see liberals as a bunch of pansies who don't take terrorism seriously. It's just not true. The approach might not be as blunt as "shoot first, ask questions later", which has been the M.O. thus far, but that certainly hasn't worked very well.

Oh, and let's be blunt (and bold), Bush gave Rove the title of Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy in 2006. FACT. But I'm sure that's just something the NY Times made up.

Wait. That's right. I've seen talked about on Fox too. Looks like Fox is in on it too now! What will you watch?!

RB, I do agree that the country became much more polarized after the election, but unlike you I (shockingly) don't put all the blame on liberals. I do believe that some blame lies there, but as much as you'd like to believe that conservatives had nothing to do about it, it's just not true. Liberals have been demonized through and through over the course of this administration. I know because I've felt it. We don't support the troops. We want to talk it out with terrorists. If we're against the war we're with the terrorists. And you know the rest. You can deny it, but you know it's true. Though I guess you could always take Olorin's course of action and say "That wasn't demonizing, you really are like that!" Personally though, I think that's silly.

And sorry about the double post earlier.
_________________
"Kick a hole in the speaker, pull the plug, then I jet."

toothpastefordinner.com

Corbijn · Booze Peddler Joined: 27 Jun 2005 Posts: 1356 Location:

My initial reaction to the question of what polarized this country, and I should probably think a little more on it before posting....but what the hell, would be that it actually started in the earlyto mid '90s with the combo of Bill Clinton and the rise of conservative talk radio/FNC.

A large part of creating a strong foundation for this relatively new spin (atleast mainstream) on an old media required the hosts (ie, the Limbaughs of the world) to create a rallying cry.....and they chose (quite successfully) to use a combination of anti-Clinton and demonizing the very word "liberal."

And then when the Lewinsky scandal hit, they had succeeded in creating that foundation. The conservative hosts had their own George W. Bush, and had succeeded in making a large portion of this country link all liberals with California liberals, and make liberal a dirty word.

But that only started the polarizing, it took something else to polarize the other side.....but it didn't take much. The 2000 election, especially the suspicion and circus that was the aftermath, I think was the foundation for the left's polarization. Not long from there you get 9/11 which was actually temporarily unifying (remember how united we all were in the immediate weeks afterwards? I barely do too....), but resulted in the Patriot Act which was extremely polarizing to the left, as well as the heaps of suspicions regarding the War with Iraq (note that it was Iraq, I don't recall anyone really fighting the Afghan War until 2004, and even then it was just grandstanding liberal politicians).

I think that would be a fair summary of how we got here, though I'm sure there are other events that need to be taken into account....this is being done at 4:30am, so I'm sure I'm missing a bit.
_________________
Matt
http://www.myspace.com/lifewithoutamicrowave