George W. Bush: A Symptom of Disease

O

Oberdan

#11
The fact that such a misfit could ascend to the presidency is testimony to the effectiveness of the capital system. Under capitalism, political power is not derived from the people, as would be the case in a democracy; nor does it not flow from the bottom up—it matriculates from the top down. It is really quite simple: The men and women who are in office were put there by people with immense wealth to represent the interests of the wealthy, to make money for them. And that is exactly what they are doing.

"Our imperial leader, an impish little man with clear sociopathic symptoms, is incapable of empathy for the struggles of the common people, as those born into wealth and privilege often are. The man with his finger on the nuclear detonator is mentally ill, incapable of remorse—a fact that should terrify every world citizen. I do not say this out of malice or to demean the president; it is simply a statement of fact based upon quantifiable evidence that any student of psychology would easily recognize."

George W. Bush: A Symptom of Disease :: from www.uruknet.info :: news from occupied Iraq - it
[FONT=Verdana,Arial][FONT=Verdana,Arial] Certainly no man of conscience or integrity could so easily betray the people of America he is sworn to serve. That is why George W. Bush is the right man for the job and he is abetted by a compliant Congress acting under the influence of corporate lobbyists. But the president and his accomplices in Congress are only symptoms of a more pervasive disease that deeply afflicts our political system—capitalism. Class war is being waged simultaneously on many fronts and the dough keeps rolling in.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial][FONT=Verdana,Arial]
It's certainly a bitter pill of truth to swallow, as this freelance writer hates Bush almost as much as I do. This is the only part I see that has changed recently, somewhat, with a Congress who recently told the Preseident 'No' to the so called Surge, and even the Senators at a recent Committee conveyed to Rice to take to the President, "Stay out of Iran." They did that because there was concern over one of the President's signing statements in 2002 that gave him too much power over Congress to arbitrarily go to War without approval. I watched it live as Mr. Webb, I forget which State, let her have it between the eyes, and the Chairman backing it up.

We can only hope our Statement with the vote last mid election was enough... but Bush is showing his true dictorial colors in also coming back that he will do it no matter what Congress wants... the Surge, as he likes to call it. We have checks and balances so one office can't be too powerful for a reason. We need to restore that process big time.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
J

johnlocke

#12
The fact that such a misfit could ascend to the presidency is testimony to the effectiveness of the capital system. Under capitalism, political power is not derived from the people, as would be the case in a democracy; nor does it not flow from the bottom up—it matriculates from the top down. It is really quite simple: The men and women who are in office were put there by people with immense wealth to represent the interests of the wealthy, to make money for them. And that is exactly what they are doing.

"Our imperial leader, an impish little man with clear sociopathic symptoms, is incapable of empathy for the struggles of the common people, as those born into wealth and privilege often are. The man with his finger on the nuclear detonator is mentally ill, incapable of remorse—a fact that should terrify every world citizen. I do not say this out of malice or to demean the president; it is simply a statement of fact based upon quantifiable evidence that any student of psychology would easily recognize."

George W. Bush: A Symptom of Disease :: from www.uruknet.info :: news from occupied Iraq - it
Where I disagree with you is in the argument that Bush is a symptom of the disease... a patient zero if you will. I would put forth the argument posited by Heratcles, that character is fate.

If you look at the life story of George W. Bush, he is not among America's best and brightest or our most capable. He is merely among the most privileged and has escaped responsibility for his failures as a result. Bush was a mediocre student who, through connections established by his father, went on to become a mediocre businessman. His advancement and affluence arose, not as a result of his own acumen and hard work, but rather it was based on his being rescued by friends and allies of his father. People who might want the benefit of having the Bushes owe them a favor would help little shrub out. One need only look at his long list of mediocre to poor business decisions to know that this is so.

It is hardly surprising that Bush was a mediocre businessman, because this pattern of privilege shielded him from a crucial life lesson- that in the real world success comes as a result of a LOT of hard work. This is something George W. Bush has NEVER had to learn because he always got by on his name rather than on his skills. That he went into politics, and became first a mediocre to poor governor and later a mediocre to poor president is hardly surpising.

Why is this important to us anyway? Well, it's important because mediocre managers don't hire superstars or people who are MORE competent than they are. IF they accidentally DO manage to find someone who is a stellar performer those superstars quickly realize that they need to move up or move on... but they don't remain with the mediocre manager. Thus it is that we got a crew of mediocre ideologues setting policy for a president who was too used to getting by to actually control the workings of his own administration. This also explains the reported isolationism of the administration because listening to different points of view is HARD WORK, while listening to only one point of view is easy- particularly if it allows you to do something you want to do anyway.

Thus it is that America's fate is a result of George W. Bush's character.:cool:
 
J

justoneman

#14
It's standard operating procedure to post excerts from a link and then the link itself if somebody wants to call attention to a political article they find interesting enough to share. Or the link and then the excerts.

What are you doing, justoneman? Following Inky around because you don't like him and start trolling his threads? If you have nothing to mention about the article, then leave it alone. If you disagree with the article, then by all means disagree with the article. It's what these forums are about.

Don't attack another board member for SOP. It's unbecoming and uncouth. I have had such instances happen to me, and I can tell you, it's insulting to say the least.
You are critisizing me for having nothing to say about an article but Inky has nothing to say about it either. That is the point. Maybe he could say something about it.
 
I

Inkslinger

#15
You are critisizing me for having nothing to say about an article but Inky has nothing to say about it either. That is the point. Maybe he could say something about it.
I post what I believe to be true, wether I say it, or someone else says it... Would you quietly STFU if I said I agreed with the article?