Originally posted by FMFI think Bush was under permanent orders not to speak in an unscripted environment. And even then you sensed that his handlers were hanging on for dear life lest he implode.
Would Bush have come across better if he had allowed himself to be exposed to just a modicum of raucous dissent once in a while?
A lot of people make much of the fact that his sitting in a schoolroom while 9/11 was under way proves he was in on the *conspiracy*. What it actually may prove that Bush was the ultimate puppet, held at arms length from any really power. The fact that he wasn't on to it was that his input was not required.
But what they did get was a sincere response from him when it mattered. How else did he get that popular post 9/11. He got the job because he could wear his heart on his sleeve. We all know some of his more interesting mangulations of the English language, during prepared speeches. Why would his handlers have allowed such an un-knowledged man near an open unscripted mike?
Originally posted by joe beyserOh; Boo Hoo. Poor you. Mean old GW Bush took all your liberty away.
If you don't count taking our liberty away.
In January of 2001 you had liberty but now because of GW Bush you have no more liberty left.
Just so I can sympathize with your plight more properly, why don't you give me seven examples of things that you want to do and that you could have done in January 2001 but that you can't do now because of that evil man who came in and stole your liberty? Or failing that, I'll settle for one.
Originally posted by sh76View the city of New York from the observation deck of the World Trade Centre building?
Just so I can sympathize with your plight more properly, why don't you give me seven examples of things that you want to do and that you could have done in January 2001 but that you can't do now because of that evil man who came in and stole your liberty? Or failing that, I'll settle for one.
Originally posted by sh76Would you, then, argue that there's actually continuity between Bush II and Obama in terms of insulating the president from unscripted interraction?
As opposed to Obama, who, of course, speaks off the cuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKPfMZ6I_cw
Form your point of view, was Bush II different from Clinton in this respect?
Originally posted by FMFno I dont get it .you specifically said Bush was insulated from exposure to those who disagreed w/him or those who sought to ask him difficult or detailed questions.Now you say thats not what you were talking about. Next,do I ever remember Bush handling hecklers? All you got to do is google"bush getting heckled" or "bush getting booed" and there you have it. You also asked why there was no footage of this,well there you go. next."free speech zones",yes the secret service did implement this practice that had been around long before Bush(which is unconstitutional). Next, a"genuine the president will now take questions press conference". When have you ever seen one of them?! No President does this including Obama. There is nothing "genuine" about them.When Obama (or any Prez) picks on a member of the press he knows exactly what the question will be. Making comparisons,Obama rarely speaks w/out a dozen or so teleprompters surrounding him that he reads from that somebody else wrote for him.The rare occassions he has gone off the cuff it was hilarious,w/a bunch of DUH'S and UHH'S. Or the classic I cant answer that question its above my pay grade(concerning partial birth abortions)If anyone is the most insulated it is Obama. The next Prez will most likely even be more so.
Whether you are deliberately missing the point or you just do not get it, I don't really know. I am not talking about whether the questions are difficult, I am talking about exposure to the possibility that people who disagree with the president are physically present, let alone get the chance to question him (or heckle him for that matter).
How many ...[text shortened]... On the other hand, "Free speech zones" are part of Bush II's legacy, like it or not.
Originally posted by utherpendragonMay I just say that you don't half come across like a freepster for a guy who claims to be non-partisan. It's like you went through the Nobama freepster talking points...
no I dont get it .you specifically said Bush was insulated from exposure to those who disagreed w/him or those who sought to ask him difficult or detailed questions.Now you say thats not what you were talking about. Next,do I ever remember Bush handling hecklers? All you got to do is google"bush getting heckled" or "bush getting booed" and there you h ...[text shortened]... e is the most insulated it is Obama. The next Prez will most likely even be more so.
www.freerepublic.com
Originally posted by FMFI dont know what a freepster is but if you are claiming I made my points quoting a web site your wrong. That all came out of my head sipping my first cup of coffee. I am non-partisan. I exercise my right to vote, and I am an Independant. I strongly believe there is a need for a viable 3rd party in this country. in my opinion the republicans and the democrats both suck. BTW are we ever going to agree on anything other than" the Dead" is a great band? 🙂
May I just say that you don't half come across like a freepster for a guy who claims to be non-partisan. It's like you went through the Nobama freepster talking points...
www.freerepublic.com
Originally posted by FMFWith the direction the country seems to be heading, he might as well get used to it.
[b]Obama faces down abortion heckles.
President Barack Obama has been briefly heckled as he addressed students at one of the largest Catholic universities in the US amid a row over abortion rights.
The story can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/8054650.stm
This sort of thing didn't happen much during the G.W.Bush years. His people v ...[text shortened]... after 9/11.
Was zero tolerance for heckling dissent part and parcel of Bush's success?[/b]
Originally posted by FMFI'll have to disagree with you on this point. I know I've beat this 'I come from Portland' thing into the ground on the posts, but when Bush came to this town he dubbed it "little Beirut" because of the near riots that broke out because of his presence. The mainstream media did not always portray it but it was there. It got so bad in some cities that Bush had to implement those silly measures like the free speech zones. Hell Cheney could not even announce his visits to Portland publicly he did not want a full scale demonstration to block his fundraising. Bush got heckled.
[b]Obama faces down abortion heckles.
President Barack Obama has been briefly heckled as he addressed students at one of the largest Catholic universities in the US amid a row over abortion rights.
The story can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/8054650.stm
This sort of thing didn't happen much during the G.W.Bush years. His people v ...[text shortened]... after 9/11.
Was zero tolerance for heckling dissent part and parcel of Bush's success?[/b]
Originally posted by sh76For me so far it is living in a country that now monitors phone conversations. It started off they would monitor only calls placed and recieved to and from locations outside the USA. Now it is everyone. That would be privacy. How about living in a country that if you piss off the wrong person you can be labeled a terrorist and denied counsel. You can be denied a speedy trial. Living in a country where torture is used. Fear that because of political affiliation, a person may become a target an labeled as a terrorist. Living in a country where the military police the public. Living in a country with fear of getting on some kind of list that brands a person for life, such as the no fly list. Living in a country that, based on a false or malicious tip off from someone can bring in swat teams, FBI,ATF agents in the middle of the night kicking in the door and in confusion shooting a person or their family members. Granted, these things haven't happend to me yet, but they are happening. It sets the stage for a police state. I wasn't saying poor me in any way. When I say our, I mean US citezens collectively. The handwriting is on the wall. The only thing that has affected me personally is living in a country with all this in place.
Oh; Boo Hoo. Poor you. Mean old GW Bush took all your liberty away.
In January of 2001 you had liberty but now because of GW Bush you have no more liberty left.
Just so I can sympathize with your plight more properly, why don't you give me seven examples of things that you want to do and that you could have done in January 2001 but that you can't do now b ...[text shortened]... se of that evil man who came in and stole your liberty? Or failing that, I'll settle for one.
Originally posted by FMFAll Presidents read scripts and teleprompters.
Would you, then, argue that there's actually continuity between Bush II and Obama in terms of insulating the president from unscripted interraction?
Form your point of view, was Bush II different from Clinton in this respect?
There are, however, times that a President has no choice but to speak off the cuff. Reagan and Clinton were excellent at it. Bush I was okay; Bush II was poor. The jury's very much still out on Obama.
===For me so far it is living in a country that now monitors phone conversations. It started off they would monitor only calls placed and recieved to and from locations outside the USA. Now it is everyone.===
The warrant requirement to record phone conversations still exists.
====How about living in a country that if you piss off the wrong person you can be labeled a terrorist and denied counsel. You can be denied a speedy trial. ====
How many times has this happened to US residents who were not captured during a foreign wars?
===Fear that because of political affiliation, a person may become a target an labeled as a terrorist.===
How many times has this happened? Can you cite a few examples?
=== Living in a country where the military police the public. ===
When has this happened? Last I checked, I haven't seen the marines storming the shores of my local beach.
===Living in a country with fear of getting on some kind of list that brands a person for life, such as the no fly list. ===
Many countries have lists of people who could be considered dangerous. Just read the other thread on Michael Savage and England. In any case, that list was not the Bush administration's invention.
===Living in a country that, based on a false or malicious tip off from someone can bring in swat teams, FBI,ATF agents in the middle of the night kicking in the door and in confusion shooting a person or their family members. ===
That applies to the police in every country. If you, as an informant, lie about someone else having committed a crime, the police can use that lie to get a warrant to search your house and and arrest you. They may not call them swat teams, but the police is the police. Which country has no system by which the police can use a tip to get a warrant?
===Granted, these things haven't happend to me yet, but they are happening.====
Do you have some examples?
The closest thing I can think of in terms of the swat team scenario you described above was the Elian Gonzales case, which was executed by the Clinton administration. (and they did an excellent job on that case, by the way)
=== It sets the stage for a police state. ===
It only "sets the stage"? So, when is the police state coming? Will it come under the Obama administration? If not, when will it come?
===I wasn't saying poor me in any way. When I say our, I mean US citezens collectively. The handwriting is on the wall. The only thing that has affected me personally is living in a country with all this in place.===
Well, if it's any comfort, don't worry. We're not a police state and we're not going to become one any time soon.
Originally posted by StTitoYou're not going to let those silly annoying things called "facts" get in the way of a good opportunity to bash Bush, are you?
I'll have to disagree with you on this point. I know I've beat this 'I come from Portland' thing into the ground on the posts, but when Bush came to this town he dubbed it "little Beirut" because of the near riots that broke out because of his presence. The mainstream media did not always portray it but it was there. It got so bad in some cities that Bush had ...[text shortened]... cly he did not want a full scale demonstration to block his fundraising. Bush got heckled.
Party pooper!