RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] what majority wants Bush?

["Heivilin, Jim" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> -----Original Message-----
> Chad Whiting
> Subject: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] what majority wants Bush?
> 
> > I still find it staggering that so many people can want to elect 
> > someone so bad at math! I certainly hope that the country 
<snip>
> I don't see in the constitution where it says, Presidential pre-req: 
> Pass a math exam
> 
It doesn't say that the President shouldn't be a moron either!  (pardon
the emotion, he pisses me off)  While it's theoretically possible for
someone whose not smart (smart enough? But then where's the cut off
too?) to do well at a job like this provided he has good advisors, I see
his advisors (controllers) being corporate (and former corporate) types
who are more concerned with their personal bottom line than anything
altruistic concerning the country itself.  

> I'm not sure where your information comes from either that he 
> is bad at math, not that math skills help you lead a country. 
>
Math skills and a persons proficiency with math indicates (to me at
least) the ability and aptitude for logical thought.  I believe this
capability is required for leadership at a national level.  I could be
wrong, I'm just stating my opinions.  

> So Kerry can find the square root of 16 faster than Bush, good 
> for him. Although I don't see any evidence that Kerry has 
> better math skills than Bush either.
> 
It was a subtle dig at his budget priorities and his apparent disregard
for the idea that we should reduce the deficit or be fiscally
responsible.  Perhaps I should have been less subtle.  Or less ironic. 

> > I believe that Bush will do what is good for Bush (and his, to 
> > use a spy term, "controllers") as opposed to what's good for the
country.
> 
> That may be what you believe, but his issues he is supporting 
> and that he supported while in office were in the best interest 
> of the country, and of the foundation that our country was founded on.

>
In your opinion.  

In my opinion his position on assorted topics was motivated by his own
personal desire for power, more money, for paying back people who'd done
him favors and other things of this nature.  He's the only one who will
ever know and it's in his own best interests not to reveal that.  

That particular disagreement and the ability to disagree are part of
"the foundation our country was founded on".  A bit redundant and
sounding a lot like one of his speeches ("the department of redundancy
department").  

> I know a lot of people want to throw away our constitutional 
> foundation and get rid of 'In God We Trust' and say that 
> Abortion is fine and good, but that's not what America is 
> / was about.
>
I mentioned absolutely nothing whatsoever about religious convictions.
I don't (necessarily) believe those are required for national
leadership.  They often lead to solid moral and ethical convictions,
which I do deem necessary if not essential, but what religion is
irrelevant to me.  If Buddhism leads the President toward good decisions
which are logical, well thought out and morally and ethically sound then
I say 'yay for Buddhism'.  If Southern Baptism leads to the same result,
then 'yay for South Baptism'.  Etc, regardless of which religion we're
talking about.  So long as that conviction doesn't impinge on my (or
anyone else's) freedom to worship a different religion.  (or a different
lifestyle but here we enter into the gay 'marriage' debate, another very
emotionally charged topic) 

Or perhaps I should say it's not irrelevant since our country was
founded due to religious persecution and thus initially had a leaning
toward more religious tolerance (a trend which may be on the decline).  

> > I don't believe Kerry will be much better but it's a question of a 
> > theoretical evil compared with a known evil (or perhaps I 
> > should say incompetent rather than evil).
> 
> this is the typical mindset of kerry supporters, we don't 
> like Bush, but we don't like this other guy either, so I 
> guess we'll vote for him just because we like him better 
> than Bush. 
>
The lesser of two evils is not an uncommon choice in modern life.
Personally I like Mike's idea of the order of preference list (what was
it called?).  I'd rank Kerry higher than Bush but there may very well be
people I'd rank higher than Kerry.  

> But Bush supporters actually support their president.
> 
I'm very familiar with supporting people you think are stupid or make
stupid decisions.  As a military officer we were trained that it was
permissible (even required) that if you thought the commander was going
to make a bad decision, you provide him with your input (including an
alternate course of action, also assuming he was one of the commanders
who solicited input rather than using a more dictatorial leadership
approach).  There was a point at which you stopped arguing and said "Yes
Sir", saluted and went off to do what he had decided needed to be done.


However I'm no longer in the military and I spent 13 years of my life
ensuring that you have the right to have an opinion I believe is wrong.
And that I have the right to disagree verbally and in public with you.  

> Feel free to share your opinion, this is dicussion - not math 
> class. My facts are Bush supports the war on terror, Kerry can't 
> decide where he stands. Kerry voted for the patriot act, now he 
> is whining and says it's bad. Bush is pro-life, Kerry is pro-murder. 
>
Using this particular term ("pro-murder") shows that your position ...
well we won't go there since all it will do is invoke more emotion and
make the discussion less rational.  

> Bush is improving schools and national security. 
>
I remain undecided on his school policy since I haven't heard from my
teacher friends what the local impact of it has been, but it doesn't
make sense to me.  I can't advance a grade unless you can too?  But if
I'm better at math I should learn more of it (which may lead into
science, a worthwhile field).  And if you're better at English then you
should learn more of it (which may lead into literature, another
worthwhile field).  The ones who are good at both may lead into
business, another admirable (in most cases) avocation.  But if I have to
wait until you can pass the math test before I can learn more math ...
I see this policy as propaganda.  It sounds good to people so they'll
support you but in practice it's less than efficient.  (sorry, my
engineering education is showing)

> Kerry wants our country to conform to the international 
> standards and turn us into France. Bush says to hell with it, 
> let's do it the American way.
> 
Throw money at it?  Historically the American way.  Again less than
efficient in my opinion.  

Your "facts" sound to me a lot like an assortment of Republican
propaganda.  I could return with a lot of Democratic propaganda about
Bush "flip-flopping" and a whole slew of "facts" about his business
endeavors (most of which are before he came to office).  This doesn't
even touch on the whole "legalizing torture" business or the mess with
Haliburton. 

Jim 

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion