Mandate?

[Displaced Flames fan]

And that's an inflammatory, pompous statement how?

The American people voted to re-elect him and now he's going to go to work. That's how I interpet it. Of course, I don't spend hours surfing the net looking for any little thing I can point out as negative about the guy either.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Nov 9 2004, 10:50 PM
And that's an inflammatory, pompous statement how?

The American people voted to re-elect him and now he's going to go to work. That's how I interpet it. Of course, I don't spend hours surfing the net looking for any little thing I can point out as negative about the guy either.

It only takes seconds to find negative things about him on the web DFf -- you know that. I didn't have to search for that comment -- it was all over the place. Really, I'm surprised you missed it.

It's an inflammatory, pompous statement because he is inflammatory, and pompous.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Nov 10 2004, 04:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Nov 10 2004, 04:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Nov 9 2004, 10:50 PM
And that's an inflammatory, pompous statement how?

The American people voted to re-elect him and now he's going to go to work. That's how I interpet it. Of course, I don't spend hours surfing the net looking for any little thing I can point out as negative about the guy either.

It only takes seconds to find negative things about him on the web DFf -- you know that. I didn't have to search for that comment -- it was all over the place. Really, I'm surprised you missed it.

It's an inflammatory, pompous statement because he is inflammatory, and pompous. [/b][/quote]
So everything Lanny ever says is inflammatory and pompous? OK...I'll have to remember that.

How convenient it must be to be able to fit someone in a simple set of labels and then conveniently place everything they say and do in the same set of labels without really evaluating it at all. Pretty darn effortless isn't it?!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Nov 9 2004, 11:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Nov 9 2004, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

It only takes seconds to find negative things about him on the web DFf -- you know that. I didn't have to search for that comment -- it was all over the place. Really, I'm surprised you missed it.

It's an inflammatory, pompous statement because he is inflammatory, and pompous.

So everything Lanny ever says is inflammatory and pompous? OK...I'll have to remember that.

How convenient it must be to be able to fit someone in a simple set of labels and then conveniently place everything they say and do in the same set of labels without really evaluating it at all. Pretty darn effortless isn't it?! [/b][/quote]
It certainly is effortless.

Nobody can deny that George is inflammatory, and I think he's pompous. So... when he says something that is inflammatory and pompous, it's effortless to say "he's inflammatory, and pompous".

Why do you say I didn't evaluate it? You haven't even seen the speech. It was inflammatory (obviously) and he looked pompous giving it. That cornball grin (some call in 'folksiness', I call it something else) and the way he delivered it were pompous, not to mention wrong. He's coming across with this "the American people have said I can do what I want" but unfortunately for him, they haven't.

[Displaced Flames fan]

He's inflammatory and pompous so anything he says must also be. That's what you said. That's why I said you didn't evaluate it.

BTW..wasn't accusing you of patrolling the net for negative Bush tidbits, but there are those here who do just that.

and no, I didn't see the speech...I have a life to live...not much time for watching meaningless speeches, pompous and inflammatory or not.

And for about the millionth time....Bush can't just do whatever he wants. The President has very little power on his own. Yes, he has a Republican congress, but some of the things he is accused of wanting to do are impossible even with that.

But the same things will continue to be said here. Over and over and over and over again. Bush is going to turn the US into a theocracy! Just ask Lanny.

[Displaced Flames fan]

BTW...I'm sure in that last post I said something that will indicate that I am a 'rascist'. I have no idea what it could be, but let me just apologize for it now.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Nov 9 2004, 11:17 PM


And for about the millionth time....Bush can't just do whatever he wants. The President has very little power on his own. Yes, he has a Republican congress, but some of the things he is accused of wanting to do are impossible even with that.

That's true, and I admit that I do forget it at times. Arlen Specter was even "warning" that he can't do whatever he wants so your point is certainly correct.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Actually, it certainly looks like it's going to be a theocracy. But not in the obvious ways - things will be slowly dismantled over time. Once the Supreme Court is balanced in favour of the Christian Right and their bidding, you will see an unwinding of human rights in the US. Seems obvious that the targets are:

1) Gay marriage
2) Stem Cell Research
3) Abortion
4) School Prayer, aka, the imposition of one kind of god on all citizens.
5) The focus of sexual education away from condoms et al onto hope without a prayer ideas like abstinence programs.

It won't be a theocracy akin to the sharia law stuff imposed in Afghanistan, but lots of people who like their god's law are in positions of power now.

My question is that whether a MASSIVE geographical split in voting patterns (still funny that those actually affected by the terrorists in New York voted overwhelming to kick Bush out) and a couple of percentage points (which drops to about one if you remove the Nader voters) allows him to do what he wants. It's not like Nixon when he had over 60 percent of the population on his side.

51% is a win. Not a mandate. Although (like others) I have a morbid curiousity as to how far the US is willing to take him.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Nov 9 2004, 09:50 PM
And that's an inflammatory, pompous statement how?

The American people voted to re-elect him and now he's going to go to work. That's how I interpet it. Of course, I don't spend hours surfing the net looking for any little thing I can point out as negative about the guy either.

I know he was re elected and I know he'll go to work (even though he went straight on a holiday ) that's got nothing to do with his statements. You like a leader that after a very close call says in effect "I won, now I'm going to do what I want." That's fine. Me I'd prefer he just left it at the "I'm going to reach out and work for all Americans" He then went on to say "It's in my nature". Why'd he say that? I'm interested in how you interperate that.
By the way, I don't surf the net for ways to bash him either if that was aimed at me. I do happen to see and read things which stand out. But I do virtually no hunting for it in an online way.