It reminds me a lot of To Kill a Mockingbird. Atticus was able to put the jury's brain thinking about the issue, although he could not change their opinion on the issue.

But redunadant debates with nothing being gained tend to get boring and tedious. And just so you know, I am just as sick of Dems vs. Reps debates as of LOTR vs. SW debates Topics are being beaten to death.

Just on a sidenote, but can you believe Bush wants to break out the Reservists to send over to Iraq, people as high as the age of 60??? ](*,) What the fuck is wrong with this guy?? Does he even have a firm grasp as to the fact that it's gonna take at least 18 Months of bootcamp and training to prepare these guys for that??? I mean, these people are practically nearing retirement age and Bush wants to send them over to Iraq to fight in this fucking War.. Hell, I'm gonna be 39 here in 6 months and my Inactive Reserves from the Navy ended Feb 26th of 1999.. He better not call me up for this bullshit.. [-X

This sounds very much like a Rove tactic.

There were a lot of reasons to vote for Bush. He had the Anti Gay Marriage vote. He had the Security Mom vote. He had the Evangelical Christian vote. He had the Tax Cut vote. He had the Halliburton/Bechtel vote. He had the "I wish I could vote for Kerry but I just can't" vote. He's had some of the Latino vote. None of these single groups is a majority of the population, but the sum of the minorities was just enough to win. Now Bush is acting as if each minority faction is a majority of the population. "Wow, some of you like that I'm anti-gay, therefore, everybody must like everything I do! Woo-hoo! Let's invade Iran because you all love me so much!"

Sorry Lecter, I don't see this as a Dem vs. Republican debate. At this point, I'm not even sure if Bush is a Republican.

And Lecter, since when do threads have to meet with your approval? Is there some rule that says a thread must "gain" something, or be "exciting?"

So what's the point here? Bush won the presidency, yet you want to deny him the ability to advance his agenda? On what grounds?

I'm not denying his ability to advance his agenda.

The point is - he, once again, isn't claiming responsibility over his actions, but this SPECIFIC time, he's putting the people that gave him a slight victory over Kerry into his statement and implying that they all agreed with his policies when we know (as do you. cite all the frickin' facts you want, but you know that the public doesn't see the war too favorably. at best, it's split 50/50) that he didn't win the election because people agreed with his Iraqi policy. No one changed votes from '00 to '04 because of the Iraqi war. Except maybe Zell Miller...but...he's...Zell Miller.

So? Once again, I fail to see your point. Bush won the election. That's a fact. Bush also has his own idea about conducting the war in Iraq. If most people really wanted to hold Bush accountable for the way things are going there and felt it was a strong priority, they would've voted him out of office.

As it stands, out of 51% of the people who approved going to Iraq, 85% voted for Bush. Out of the 44% who thought that things in Iraq were going well, 90% voted for Bush.

Is there any doubt that people who voted for Bush approved of the war in Iraq and how he's handling it?

I think what torrino is trying to ask krem is that sure people who vote may be accountable, but does that mean bush is not accountable for any wrong decisions he made?

That's exactly right. But who is Bush accountable to? He is accountable to the people that elected him.

So he IS accountable, innit?

see, i look at a lot of things as corporations ... you're elected for something and you're accountable for things whether you were elected or not ... you're fired or asked to step down, you can't say you elected me so technically, you're responsible. yes the firm deserves to suffer (board of directors or shareholders) .. at the same time, its their decision to kik the guy out ... same applies to american peopelk


what am i saying .. i really don't know ... i guess to an extent, bush is right to put the american people and make them accountable to for having trust in him but at the same time, you cannot denounce any responsibility because of that argument ....

Bush is not saying that American people are accountable (but of course, that's always implied). He is saying that he is, and he passed the accountability test on November 2nd 2004.

Well, just because you won an election does not mean you passed a test. I mean, more information can always be found later on .. or more or better analysis can be done .... the US troops from what i read just stopped looking for WmDs altogether a week or so ago (correct me if i'm wrong) .... things like that mean that accountability is forever ongoing on most subjects until they're brought to a close.

I agree with you, but holding an election every day just isn't practical. There has to be some sort of compromise. Obviously a lifetime presidency a la Turkmenistan is dangerous, but having a new leader, say, every year, can be very unproductive.

Besides, most of the facts that are known today were known 2 months ago as well.

Yes, I just made it, all non-followers will be publically whipped and them tar-feathered. \:D/