Losing faith in politics

Or at least interest

Published on October 7, 2005 By Draginol In US Domestic

Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee I think pretty much seals it that Bush is really just an idiot. I've had misgivings about him and was not a fan of his in the past but this nomination reeks of arrogance.

The Roman emperor, Caligula, made his horse a senator. I suppose now we know that reincarnation is possible though at least Bush's advisors managed to thwart any ideas of nominating a favorite horse to the supreme court.

Bush's croneyism is possibly the worst in the modern era. He may be fairly moral in most respects but his professional ethics certainly are in question.

Frankly, I'm disgusted with Bush. And since the Republican senators are likely to rubber stamp his nominee, I've lost interest in politics. We have the Republicans who seem to be eager to appear as the party of the corrupt and the Democrats who are eager to be the party of the screwballs (when they're not bitching and moaning pathetically).

And so here we are. Sigh.

Comments (Page 3)

Ionolast

on Oct 08, 2005

And dont use Col Klink. or Dabe. Both dont cite reasons, they just bash.

But they're the ones who are called loony and I think they have given their reasons.

I'm not referring to bashing his policies, I'm referring to bashing him; calling him an idiot.

Dr Guy

on Oct 08, 2005

It's been my experience here, thus far, that when anyone is critical of the Bush Admin. they are immediately branded 'liberal' or accused of 'bush-bashing' instead of arguing the facts of the matter.

Guess you just got a new experience.

Dr Guy

on Oct 08, 2005

Your assumptions about me are wrong and I think this exposes your die-hard commitment to Bush&Co.

Not even close, but then while you claim to read, it is evident you dont. Like Col Klink, you can claim a lot of things, but so far, you have only mouthed the mantra of the loony left. How else are we to judge you that what you put down here as no one knows you from a skunk.

Dr Guy

on Oct 08, 2005

But they're the ones who are called loony and I think they have given their reasons.

Name one substantive one that is not a rant. Unemployment is down, Bush bad. Unemployment is up., Bush bad. Those one trick ponies dont have reasons. Anything they can find they blame on him. Myrr at least proposes a reasonable argument when he is not huffing.

Deference

on Oct 08, 2005

Not even close, but then while you claim to read, it is evident you dont.

You're going to have to qualify that with some evidence.

Like Col Klink, you can claim a lot of things, but so far, you have only mouthed the mantra of the loony left.

Sure, I don't do anything on my own. Get real. Maybe you see anyone as 'mouthing the mantra of the loony left' when they don't fully support this admin. but, come on, you make that baseless accusation as your opinion time and again with out ever explaining it. Care to expound upon it with specifics?

How else are we to judge you that what you put down here as no one knows you from a skunk.

You can take my word for it as that is all you have, you can explore that avenue, I guarantee it will be far more interesting then us simply trading barbs. You can ask me why I feel / think a way and then discern if I'm truthful or simply selling propaganda. We don't have to be narrow here, but if that's easier for you...

Heydre

on Oct 08, 2005

The viability of our political system depends on the countering forces of our political parties and the beliefs that support them.

The zealotry of both parties has only served to sway the masses as they seem incapable of making decisions based on principles separate from their political ideology.

In the end, these politicians are only a product of the same society from which we've sprung. How different are you really?

Dr Guy

on Oct 08, 2005

but, come on, you make that baseless accusation as your opinion time and again with out ever explaining it.

Care to prove that?

drmiler

on Oct 08, 2005

but, come on, you make that baseless accusation as your opinion time and again with out ever explaining it.

Care to prove that?

Yeah, I'd like to see that too!

Daiwa

on Oct 09, 2005

There's a heckuva lot of assuming & counter-assuming going on here. FWIW.

Cheers,
Daiwa

joeKnowledge

on Oct 09, 2005

I voted for him last term considering that he was the better man for the job (even with all of the crap he does and the stuff I don't at all agree with, he still is the better man for the job... which doesn't say much), but I never really liked him.

Now even republicans are getting the brunt of his interesting... ways of working.

Welcome to my world.

Dr Guy

on Oct 09, 2005

(even with all of the crap he does and the stuff I don't at all agree with, he still is the better man for the job... which doesn't say much)

That's like saying he is the best chess playing dog there is.

Slanderer

on Oct 09, 2005

Brad, I think you are over reacting.

One of the concerns that highlighted Bush's first term was a tight knit, behind-closed-doors method of promotion. I would have figured people would have gotten used to the cronyism by now. Hey if the dems can accept it so can anyone!

Remember the criticism levelled at Wolfowitz when he was promoted to the World Bank? People wanted more input than simply the president's good word. Critics felt more capable candidates were available but were never nominated because of presidential nomination. Once Wolfowitz entered the running the other candidates were tossed.

George pulled the same stunt when Condi was hired. I remember vividly the dems voicing out her dubious command over war intel and the risk of repetition should she get the job. If memory serves me correctly she had one of the highest opposition votes in the last 150 years. Brad, I hate to break this to you but she got the job.

Remember the special loop hole in the Bolton nomination? That right there should tell you here is a guy who has a personal agenda. Again there was resistance but the president used his power to push it through.

Don't even get me started on that jack of asses Robertson...

After the fourth time I figured you be used to it. Clinton did it just not so bluntly.

For what its worth I think this is a par for the course recommendation. If something goes wrong we now have an underqualified fall guy/girl to axe. Michael Brown was chosen to head FEMA for a reason and so was Mrs. Miers. Her appointment gets cheap votes because 1) she's a woman in a male dominated court. 2) She stacks the conservative side with the advantage in numbers. 3) She has a close relationship with the president and therefore here appointment endorses his own ideology.

In the world of politics this is a win-win scenario much like when the conservatives kicked the democrats out of congress. White house control, congressional control, and now judicial control.

See a pattern holmes?

citahellion

on Oct 10, 2005

For what its worth I think this is a par for the course recommendation. If something goes wrong we now have an underqualified fall guy/girl to axe.

But you can't fire a Supreme Court Justice. It's a lifelong appointment. And with her complete lack of experience, predicting how she's going to rule on any case is iffy at best.

Dr Guy

on Oct 10, 2005

It's a lifelong appointment. And with her complete lack of experience, predicting how she's going to rule on any case is iffy at best.

Even when they are judges (as we have seen with other 'conservative' appointments), predicting is not an exact science.

Moderateman

on Oct 10, 2005

But you can't fire a Supreme Court Justice.

45 by citahellion
Monday, October 10, 2005

but they can be removed from the bench, {impeached}

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!