George W. Bush's qualifications to be President

The problem with experience is that in order to gain any you have to be willing to objectively handle evidence, and admit when you are wrong.He has yet to admit one thing is wrong with anything he or members of his administration have done... that is in spite of volumes of evidence to the contrary.All I can tell is he's spending 4 years in an office proclaiming the same thing over and over again. What has he learned? Oh yeah "the lessons" of 9-11, which are follow the plans he already had before 9-11.This message has been edited by holmes, 08-17-2004 08:15 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I think Crash is right that Dean would have been different. While he was certainly well off financially, his background and politics were pretty different... as in independent.He was vocally anti-war and he was vocally anti-Israeli policies. He also had a wife that would be unlike ANY first lady we'd ever have had.And of course he was not "camera friendly" in that he was open to enthusiasm about what he does. So he didn't look pre-programmed.I think in this race pretty much ANYONE looks better than candidate B(ush), so it's a no-brainer for me this time. But I would have preferred Dean.BTW, was anyone else startled by Sharpton's sudden maturity in debating this year? He looked like a completely new man to me. Yeah he still had some of his race bating tricks, but some of his analyses were well put together and delivered with a lack of animosity that seemed uncharacteristic of his early days.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm not sure I agree with this part of that sentence. He began as a doctor and that takes a considerable investment beyond political aspirations. If anything it is the exact opposite of political aspirations.Granted he could (like Frist) become a card carrying politician, but I think there is something qualitatively different between LONG TERM politicians and guys like Frist or Dean, who have had real day jobs that were public service. Agreed, though as an outsider reacting to an unpopular administration, he may have had the mandate to push for those changes in policy. I also agree that this is the case, because people that even seem close to rocking the boat (like Dean potentially could have been) won't ever make it into the "most popular" category of either major party.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Heheheh... Like I said, he still had that race card which he just doesn't seem to get holds him back more than it advances him.But I was talking about his all around performance which was extremely lucid at times. I almost forgot I was watching Sharpton.I remember after one debate thinking that guy was FANTASTIC. When the analysis came on all of the commentators... even Buchanan... said Sharpton had won that debate. When you have Buchanan complimenting Sharpton, someone should be checking hell for reports of snow.On the black thing, I thought it was ridiculous that the news gave this any credence. I'd say some of the worst though was Dean's getting grilled for having gotten excited and yelling "yeeehaaaa!" I remember Fox kept playing only a portion in order to take it out of context and make it look like he was getting all angry, instead of just excited.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Ugh... Read DeLay's bio. I think he's a bit different than Frist or Dean. His apparent meandering into Biology was not the same thing as commiting onesself to a profession like medicine. That really takes some sacrifice.Anyway, you can see the partisan pot brewing with DeLay early on. I love how he's painted like some every guy. Born into oil wealth and moved around to live near oil sites, including Venezuela where clashes with "revolutionaries" gave him a passion for "freedom."I'm trying to figure out if that means he joined the revolutionaries to try and free Venezuela from American oil imperialists, or got a passion for the "freedom" of sacking other nation's resources for US profit, damn the local hotheads.The fact that he went to college and majored in something, and after graduating opened his own business, before settling into politics, looks like a rich kid drifting. Actually it looks like the cv of another rich kid from Texas currently in politics but whose name escapes me at the moment...Of course you are right that even professionals can be total partisan hacks. Total agreement. And anyone that rips into Israeli policies gets a nice big target on their back from that moment on. They are immediately fringe hotheads, even if they are part of the big parties.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Agreed.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I liked Kucinich quite a bit. And I might have even preferred him to Dean in some respects. I guess that suggests whether I would have preferred him over Kerry as well.I was mainly defending Crash's statement regarding Dean, and not trying to say he was the only "better" candidate than Kerry.In a cynical way I don't think Kucinich had a chance because he doesn't "look" the part. Not that it mattered to me, but it has mattered to the American public so many times (since tv) that I figured it stood against him. He just wasn't charismatic enough to go against Bush.Heck I'm sure that's why Cheney was placed as VP, instead of P. That guy has all the charisma of a... well ironically enough I think he looks just as much like Yoda as I've heard many say Kucinich did.It is heart warming to see K and D trying to stay in and mobilize progressives (of both sides), especially in the manner that they are. Instead of going high office or bust (which appears to be Nader's silly idea, whether his other ideas are good or not), they are trying to get progressives in at many low level positions. I think that's very smart, if you have no chance at the Presidency yourself.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

What shameful activity is that? Hiring the most qualified people that applied?I mean do you have any evidence he did something OTHER than that? We don't even know if any blacks applied to those positions, or I guess "asked" would be better in this case since it is a cabinet.Why does anyone have to have a certain number of ANY race, especially if doing so wouldn't even reflect population. Shouldn't it just be qualification? Contra, you show an extreme lack of knowledge on this. Sharpton... especially in his early days... made a fool of himself while trying to make a name for himself. He played the race card however he could, and ended up getting caught in some of his own lies.During this year's campaiging while he was on a talk show he was even caught on this by a republican. Evidentally even he would dismiss your claim as inaccurate as he proceeded to ADMIT IT WAS TRUE. In order to move on HE APOLOGIZED for the needless pain his lies and provocations had caused.So much for your theory.And as I and Hambre have suggested, he is still holding on to some of those tactics when he gets in a tight squeeze against opponents. It is simply too easy and too fallacious to throw that at someone in a debate. THAT is more accurately called tarring.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

What the hell are you talking about? Have you even been to his state? Oh yeah, you haven't even been to the US. Let me tells ya, a REAL hotbed of ongoing racism.So lets say he needed to fill ten spots, or anyone has to fill ten spots, let me know what race they must be and in what order (just in case I run into a case where it is less than ten). Oh yes, give me the reason why as well. You have GOT to be kidding me. Why don't you go to the US and talk to black people there, the guy is a JOKE to many of them.Just because a person is black does not mean they are superior and immune to racism, or in this case playing the race card to get an edge up. Blacks can figure that one out, just as well as anyone else. Yes, I've heard this and from what I have seen recently he may deserve quite a bit of credit for being a good speaker.This does not mean he cannot be racist, anyone with power (which he does have) can get a good reputation internationally. That still does not mean he is not a racist. Or in the case of what I was addressing, play the race card to get a leg up.It also does not erase his past which was NATIONAL, and filled with such garbage. You will note that I was saying I found him quite impressive during this election year, because he has changed from his earlier days. Unfortunately he still plays the race card. That's funny because you've been acting like I have to take your assertions without any evidence. Remember I asked if any black person was seeking to be in Dean's cabinet? Do you know? If not, was he supposed to conscript them in?But it is fair to say you won't believe my anecdote without a ref. Unfortunately I have seen so many debates and interview shows I can't remember which one it was and at what time.By the way do you believe the anecdote about him winning debates... including special mention by Buchanan (a republican)... or do you need a ref for that as well?If I remember right, it was on Bill Maher's show. But I could be wrong. Either way I am telling you he did, and if you get a chance to meet him, why don't you just go ahead and ask him. He apologized on national TV, I assume he'll fess up that he did so in person.If you have any doubt about Sharpton causing people... even black people... pain in order to make his name in politics, especially in his early days, look up his history online. I'm sure it must be there, unless they decided to erase Towanda Brawley's story.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Maybe you should go live there for a while. You will find some areas virulently racist (against any race including white). You will find some areas moderately racist (again against any). You will find some areas not prejudiced at all.I think you are incorrect to assume either of the first two dwarf the third such that you can paint the US as a virulently racist state. You should stick to class warfare angles, that is pretty much what it has turned into. No, YOU are making the classic error. You are believing the claim that because Dean did not have any black cabinet members he was perpetrating some racist policy.Where is the evidence?Again, if it is your argument that all roles must be filled such that racism is avoided, please list what races (in order of importance and with explanation) must be filled on a ten slot opening. THIS is true. But it is a logical fallacy to believe that you can then point to any allegation of playing the race card and say it MUST BE a right wing argument. What happened is that he was railing against Bush for having deceived the American public on a number of things but especially Iraqi WMDs and links to terrorists... and he was doing quite well I might add.Then a really pissed off guy (its funny because I thought the guy was a democrat but the rest of the show made him look like a republican), pulled out some bunch of evidence against Sharpton (actual clippings and things). As part of all of this he brought up Tawana (sorry for the misspell earlier) and some other instances of doing that similar thing. Indeed as he laid them out they were very similar in nature.Sharpton moved into an apologetic tone and said he had already apologized for that and he is still sorry for the pain that he had caused. He admitted it was of the same nature, but did say that it was not the same in SCOPE as the errors of the president... and indeed Sharpton had at least apologized.Now my criticism of Sharpton was NOT in relation to Bush. I agree that Bush did something a lot worse. But that does NOT change the charge or his culpability. In his early days he was hotheaded and a grandstander. He was trying to make a name for himself (like most politicians, and especially ministers turned politicians) and race was an easy thing to use.Without question he used it back then, and he still uses it from time to time. But he has improved! I didn't post it and I haven't read it yet. Perhaps you should ask the poster.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hot dog!!!! No it isn't, but that article was awesome. If it didn't prove my point to you then nothing ever will.It showed that while he definitely has a swing with black voters he is not loved by all of them. Conveniently he portrays them as Judas's to their race as he is their Jesus... oh man that is PRICELESS!Unfortunately for him not all black against him are conservative Republicans ala Keyes. I knew democrats and quite liberal too, that laughed at that guy.It also mentions that it was NOT JUST the Tawana Brawley case. I wish they had been a bit more descriptive about the other early cases, but Tawana was the MOST INFAMOUS of his dealings.As a side note the apology on the show was not similar to the one listed in the article. He did not try and play innocent "shouldn't I trust the girl who was raped?"*** card. He apologized for having done what he did. He did however (after admitting his guilt) put it into context of Bush and Co's hypocricies. While true, does not erase his own guilt.Although that Jesus-Judas thing wa beautiful, nothing points out who Sharpton is or was at heart than this quote... Man that says it all. He can't even spot his on egomaniacal tendencies, repeating them as if it was a SIGN of non-egomaniacal tendencies.I will repeat though, that he has calmed down in his new debate style (oh yeah the article also showed that he changed styles for this campaign). I was very impressed most of the time.***--- In case you bought Sharpton's appeal to protecting a raped girl he believed in, ask yourself this: If the girl was WHITE and the men were BLACK would have have jumped to the same position? The very tail of his apology undercut this. He says he's seen innocent people CHARGE AND SENTENCED because a jury agreed with their guilt. Uhhhh, that's EXACTLY what he tried to do against those white people. Gasp! Hypocrisy!You should not jump into American politics and defend American politicians until you know SOMETHING about the specifics.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

+ =
nice analysis.I had no idea this thread would be so fun!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Wow, that must be convenient. You make assertions and do nothing that might actually interfere with them.By total coincidence I saw a great quote today that fits this very situation."In theory, there is no difference between practice and theory. In practice, there is." Whew, that sure was easy.... to say. That doesn't change the fact that you are making a classic error. And now you are compounding it with a logical fallacy. No, you have NONE. Even according to the article it showed that he admitted he was wrong. He not only falsely accused the falsely accused... HE WENT ON to accuse people that weren't even initially charged!Buddy, the guy APOLOGIZED! It may be true that people are bringing it up again to highlight one of his poor performances (and his hypocrisy at pointing fingers at others for lying) but that does not mean he didn't do what he did.And I will repeat, that was just his most notorious incident. There were other embarassments as well.You clearly no nothing, and wish to remain that way. Okeydoke. I think he has been during this election cycle. I think you may notice... if you take in evidence... that I have already praised his recent activities.That does not mean he is not susceptible to his failings. He is, and he has shown them from time to time. When in a pinch he uses the race issue to separate himself from any opponent. Even when it is unfair to do so.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, it is YOU who have already admitted you have not. And apparently aren't up on reading my argument.My point was NOT that there were blacks against him, but that there were blacks against him within the liberal side. The guy portrays those who don't agree with him as being against blacks. Isn't that just a little like Bush and Co portraying anyone that doesn't agree with his policies as being anti-American? Because it's egomaniacal. Remember he is Jesus, and those who oppose him are Judas. That is pretty ridiculous... don't you think?After all Bush is already posing for that position and you think THAT's ridiculous, right? That's some pretty old coffee you got in the pot. Maybe you should try a newer brand. In fact maybe you should get out of your house and go to the store to actually see all the different kinds of coffee that is out there.Oh yeah, you have every reason to believe there are no such things as coffeee "blends", and if there are that they are no better than the original brand you bought, and so you don't need to. You can't be talking to me as I was the one that brought up Sharpton in the first place to give him credit for his actions during this election cycle. Well BEYOND that it was really quite funny. When asked about his egomania, he uses an apt description of an egomaniac to describe himself... and that was his defense? Man that's funny.By the way, when a person destroys their own character, isn't that character suicide? No one put those words in his mouth right? Or am I NOT supposed to believe your link? It has to do with whether his choice of which side to "believe" was racially motivated. Remember the girl was not on trial so you can't appeal to a jury about to put her away.I mean damnit why the F am I having to explain that this was WRONG? Due process WAS happening. At the time he was an ambulance chaser and a self-promoting provocateur. If conditions had been reversed he WOULD have been on the opposite side just to make his name on the race issue!The evidence has come out, the jury is in, the fair jury and thankfully he was shown to be a two bit phony and he has apologized! The fact that he tries to spin it with a few "Shouldn't I believe a GIRL?" and "But THEY have done worse!" shouldn't be able to mask the underlying stench. Did you move your eyeballs around the page enough to pick up that he started a conspiracy theory so as to rope in people that had no connection to the original "alleged" crime? That he did this just to blackmail or defame totally innocent people, even if the original crime HAD been commited?He states that the reason he did THAT, which resulted in a lot of bad for real people even before the trial, and would have resulted in a jury finding innocent people guilty, was because he cares about the fact that juries have found innocent people guilty.If you cannot spot the hypocrisy in the above then I simply have no use talking to you. Keep sleepwalking through this life.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

As much as I like his show, John Stewart is not exactly unbiased. The guy ran down Dean way too much during the Dem primaries, and is not even willing to touch the Israeli issue in a real way.I say go for Bill Maher, or Al Franken.Actually (to move away from comedians) I wouldn't mind Brian Lamb from C-Span.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)