OT - George Bush is lying to us again - bunkers were sealed

"Philip W. Moore, Jr." wrote in message
...
Bill C,

I couldn't agree with you (and John T.) more. I am really a Republicrat,
if
there is such a thing. Like a conservative Democrat with socially liberal
veins.
(Phil, this is a Bike Racing newsgroup)(Phil, this is a Bike Racing
newsgroup)(Phil, this is a Bike Racing newsgroup)(Phil, this is a Bike
Racing newsgroup)(Phil, this is a Bike Racing newsgroup)(Phil, this is a
Bike Racing newsgroup)(Phil, this is a Bike Racing newsgroup)(Phil, this is
a Bike Racing newsgroup)(Phil, this is a Bike Racing newsgroup)(Phil, this
is a Bike Racing newsgroup)(Phil, this is a Bike Racing newsgroup)(Phil,
this is a Bike Racing newsgroup)(Phil, this is a Bike Racing
newsgroup)(Phil, this is a Bike Racing newsgroup)(Phil, this is a Bike
Racing newsgroup)(Phil, this is a Bike Racing newsgroup)(Phil, this is a
Bike Racing newsgroup)(Phil, this is a Bike Racing newsgroup)(Phil, this is
a Bike Racing newsgroup)(Phil, this is a Bike Racing newsgroup)(Phil, this
is a Bike Racing newsgroup)(Phil, this is a Bike Racing newsgroup)(Phil,
this is a Bike Racing newsgroup)

The Republican Party has been hijacked by the far right-wingers and has
slammed

In article ,
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

Here's some relevant text from the second presidential debate. Note,
apart from appointing some people he considers to be mistakes and will
not name (often thought to be referring to Christie Whitman and Paul
O'Neill -- people who disagreed with him), he does not believe he has
made a single significant mistake in four years.

begin quotes =====================

(snipper)

=====================end quotes

"The president has to take responsiblity." He doesn't understand what
that means.

JT

It seems he would also possibly include Colin Powell on the list of
mistaken appointees. Another thing that shows how GWB thinks is in the book
"Bush At War", by Bob Woodward:

--------------
"I do not need to explain why I say things. ‹ That's the interesting
thing about being the President. ‹ Maybe somebody needs to explain to me
why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
--------------

At long last, he's accountable to no one. Oh my...

--
tanx,
Howard

"It looks like the squirrel's been showing everybody
where he keeps his nuts."

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 02:30:11 GMT, Howard Kveck
wrote:

Danny, I guess I don't really agree with that definition of
"leadership". It isn't so much the being "not being swayed by popular
opinion" that's an issue - it's more the standing by his convictions in the
face of overwhelming evidence that he has chosen the wrong course. GWB has
an incredible unwillingness to even acknowledge news that isn't in full
agreement with his preformed ideas and opinions. I didn't like Reagan, but
the man was a leader. GWB doesn't even come close to measuring up to that
standard.

I think it has more to do with how he makes his decisions. GWB always
seemed to arrive at his views via a consensus process. The consensus
would be determined by the level of the issue. So in politics, GWB
looks for a consensus from the Republican leadership, in campaign
positions, from his advisors and so on. For that reason, I really
believe that he would have been a better peace time president than a
wartime president, and more inclusive in that situation.

His biggest limitation is that his largest set for consensus is the
United States and population. He does not and can not IMO 'include'
the rest of the world in any meaningful way in his decision process.
He is aware of their positions, but they have no standing.

I don't think he is intransigent or ignorant of the issues as much as
people that arrive at decisions this way are slow - sometimes very
slow - to change their position on major issues. This can be good in
many cases, but it obviously has limitations.

Kerry changes quickly, way too quickly. IMO his decision making is as
close to the exact opposite of GWBs as you can get. His biggest
problem is making decisions and speaking them before he consults with
others. He blurts out that he talked with political leaders that
endorsed him and has to take it back. He says that he met with all the
members of the Security Council and then has his handlers change that.
He changes position with the group he is with. And he could be sincere
at some level. As he talks with the group, he can see how he can agree
with them. And says it out loud.

I'm still voting for Liebermann/McCain. Since I don't owe any side of
the two party system we have in the U.S. my vote, I'll 'waste' it on
who I would have preferred to be nominated.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 02:30:11 GMT, Howard Kveck
wrote:

Danny, I guess I don't really agree with that definition of
"leadership". It isn't so much the being "not being swayed by popular
opinion" that's an issue - it's more the standing by his convictions in the
face of overwhelming evidence that he has chosen the wrong course. GWB has
an incredible unwillingness to even acknowledge news that isn't in full
agreement with his preformed ideas and opinions. I didn't like Reagan, but
the man was a leader. GWB doesn't even come close to measuring up to that
standard.

I think it has more to do with how he makes his decisions. GWB always
seemed to arrive at his views via a consensus process. The consensus
would be determined by the level of the issue. So in politics, GWB
looks for a consensus from the Republican leadership, in campaign
positions, from his advisors and so on. For that reason, I really
believe that he would have been a better peace time president than a
wartime president, and more inclusive in that situation.

His biggest limitation is that his largest set for consensus is the
United States and population. He does not and can not IMO 'include'
the rest of the world in any meaningful way in his decision process.
He is aware of their positions, but they have no standing.

I don't think he is intransigent or ignorant of the issues as much as
people that arrive at decisions this way are slow - sometimes very
slow - to change their position on major issues. This can be good in
many cases, but it obviously has limitations.

Kerry changes quickly, way too quickly. IMO his decision making is as
close to the exact opposite of GWBs as you can get. His biggest
problem is making decisions and speaking them before he consults with
others. He blurts out that he talked with political leaders that
endorsed him and has to take it back. He says that he met with all the
members of the Security Council and then has his handlers change that.
He changes position with the group he is with. And he could be sincere
at some level. As he talks with the group, he can see how he can agree
with them. And says it out loud.

I'm still voting for Liebermann/McCain. Since I don't owe any side of
the two party system we have in the U.S. my vote, I'll 'waste' it on
who I would have preferred to be nominated.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 02:30:11 GMT, Howard Kveck
wrote:

Danny, I guess I don't really agree with that definition of
"leadership". It isn't so much the being "not being swayed by popular
opinion" that's an issue - it's more the standing by his convictions in the
face of overwhelming evidence that he has chosen the wrong course. GWB has
an incredible unwillingness to even acknowledge news that isn't in full
agreement with his preformed ideas and opinions. I didn't like Reagan, but
the man was a leader. GWB doesn't even come close to measuring up to that
standard.

I think it has more to do with how he makes his decisions. GWB always
seemed to arrive at his views via a consensus process. The consensus
would be determined by the level of the issue. So in politics, GWB
looks for a consensus from the Republican leadership, in campaign
positions, from his advisors and so on. For that reason, I really
believe that he would have been a better peace time president than a
wartime president, and more inclusive in that situation.

His biggest limitation is that his largest set for consensus is the
United States and population. He does not and can not IMO 'include'
the rest of the world in any meaningful way in his decision process.
He is aware of their positions, but they have no standing.

I don't think he is intransigent or ignorant of the issues as much as
people that arrive at decisions this way are slow - sometimes very
slow - to change their position on major issues. This can be good in
many cases, but it obviously has limitations.

I'm still voting for Liebermann/McCain. Since I don't owe any side of
the two party system we have in the U.S. my vote, I'll 'waste' it on
who I would have preferred to be nominated.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis,

I don't follow what you're saying, but I think you are getting closer to understanding the man.
"Consensus" means a shared opinion. Leaders arrive at consensus by shaping people's opinion. The
"consensus process" is exactly what is going on in this newsgroup, across the Internet, and around
waterholes and coolers far and wide. Isn't that the *exact* opposite of how Geo. W. Bush makes up
what passes for a mind? He *excludes* opinions divergent from his own (freezing out people in his
own cabinet, relying of a tighter circle of intimates not because of the "level of the issue" but
because he *cannot bear* the consensus process), he *excludes* evidence which would force a
thinking person to alter his or her opinion (and most radically, he disputes that evidence and
truth are linked), he claims to be accountable to *no-one* but a so-called higher authority with
whom he claims to have a personal, unique, non-share-able relationship, he avoids questioning, he
speaks poorly. Show me something consensual in his governance or decision-making; show me
evidence that there still exists something resembling a "consensus process". I don't see it. I
see someone immature, graceless, unthinking, ill-educated, unfeeling, intransigent, and now
tyrannical. It's churlish at the dinner table, it's abominable in our White House.

Kirby.
Ride on ...

"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 02:30:11 GMT, Howard Kveck
wrote:

Danny, I guess I don't really agree with that definition of
"leadership". It isn't so much the being "not being swayed by popular
opinion" that's an issue - it's more the standing by his convictions in the
face of overwhelming evidence that he has chosen the wrong course. GWB has
an incredible unwillingness to even acknowledge news that isn't in full
agreement with his preformed ideas and opinions. I didn't like Reagan, but
the man was a leader. GWB doesn't even come close to measuring up to that
standard.

I think it has more to do with how he makes his decisions. GWB always
seemed to arrive at his views via a consensus process. The consensus
would be determined by the level of the issue. So in politics, GWB
looks for a consensus from the Republican leadership, in campaign
positions, from his advisors and so on. For that reason, I really
believe that he would have been a better peace time president than a
wartime president, and more inclusive in that situation.

His biggest limitation is that his largest set for consensus is the
United States and population. He does not and can not IMO 'include'
the rest of the world in any meaningful way in his decision process.
He is aware of their positions, but they have no standing.

I don't think he is intransigent or ignorant of the issues as much as
people that arrive at decisions this way are slow - sometimes very
slow - to change their position on major issues. This can be good in
many cases, but it obviously has limitations.

I'm still voting for Liebermann/McCain. Since I don't owe any side of
the two party system we have in the U.S. my vote, I'll 'waste' it on
who I would have preferred to be nominated.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis,

I don't follow what you're saying, but I think you are getting closer to understanding the man.
"Consensus" means a shared opinion. Leaders arrive at consensus by shaping people's opinion. The
"consensus process" is exactly what is going on in this newsgroup, across the Internet, and around
waterholes and coolers far and wide. Isn't that the *exact* opposite of how Geo. W. Bush makes up
what passes for a mind? He *excludes* opinions divergent from his own (freezing out people in his
own cabinet, relying of a tighter circle of intimates not because of the "level of the issue" but
because he *cannot bear* the consensus process), he *excludes* evidence which would force a
thinking person to alter his or her opinion (and most radically, he disputes that evidence and
truth are linked), he claims to be accountable to *no-one* but a so-called higher authority with
whom he claims to have a personal, unique, non-share-able relationship, he avoids questioning, he
speaks poorly. Show me something consensual in his governance or decision-making; show me
evidence that there still exists something resembling a "consensus process". I don't see it. I
see someone immature, graceless, unthinking, ill-educated, unfeeling, intransigent, and now
tyrannical. It's churlish at the dinner table, it's abominable in our White House.

Kirby.
Ride on ...

In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 02:30:11 GMT, Howard Kveck
wrote:

Danny, I guess I don't really agree with that definition of
"leadership". It isn't so much the being "not being swayed by popular
opinion" that's an issue - it's more the standing by his convictions in the
face of overwhelming evidence that he has chosen the wrong course. GWB has
an incredible unwillingness to even acknowledge news that isn't in full
agreement with his preformed ideas and opinions. I didn't like Reagan, but
the man was a leader. GWB doesn't even come close to measuring up to that
standard.

I think it has more to do with how he makes his decisions. GWB always
seemed to arrive at his views via a consensus process. The consensus
would be determined by the level of the issue. So in politics, GWB
looks for a consensus from the Republican leadership, in campaign
positions, from his advisors and so on. For that reason, I really
believe that he would have been a better peace time president than a
wartime president, and more inclusive in that situation.

Interesting - I haven't been able to detect that was his style at all.
It seems to me (based on several in-depth articles and books written by
various insiders) that he tends to actually listen to a very small number
of advisors, and it has looked like the House and Senate leaders are given
their orders and they run with it. Those who aren't on board are very much
on the receiving end of punishment. (This is one of the things I was
referring to earlier when I mentioned the concentrating of power in the
Executive branch, btw...)

I posted this about his process for taking in the news, and it seems to
apply to his process for gathering the information that he'll need to make
a policy decision. This is from a Wash. Times article by Bill Sammon
(sorry, no link):

---------------
The president prides himself on his ability to detect bias in ostensibly
objective news stories.

"My antennae are finely attuned," he said. "I can figure out what
so-called 'news' pieces are going to be full of opinion, as opposed to
news. So I'm keenly aware of what's in the papers, kind of the issue du
jour. But I'm also aware of the facts."
---------------

Essentially, he doesn't want to hear opinions that don't jibe with the
ones he's already formed.

In several articles I've seen, a common refrain is that when a clear
decision has not already been made before a meeting, he tends to more or
less take the counsel of the last person to speak to him. So there is a lot
of jockeying to be that person, but Karl Rove is the ultimate arbiter of
who that person will be.

I think his decision making is hampered by this very critical factor:
policy is always trumped by politics. (Example: the decision on stem cell
research was apparently made on the basis of how it would effect the
electoral college in *this* election - thanks, Karl!)

His biggest limitation is that his largest set for consensus is the
United States and population. He does not and can not IMO 'include'
the rest of the world in any meaningful way in his decision process.
He is aware of their positions, but they have no standing.

I can understand this POV, but, at the same time, if other countries are
going be affected by one of his decisions, they might have some reason to
think that their postion would be considered.

I don't think he is intransigent or ignorant of the issues as much as
people that arrive at decisions this way are slow - sometimes very
slow - to change their position on major issues. This can be good in
many cases, but it obviously has limitations.

A good article on this whole subject:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...t&articleId=83
43

Kerry changes quickly, way too quickly.

I agree that Kerry is a flawed candidate. But he still is less menacing
to me than GWB.

I'm still voting for Liebermann/McCain. Since I don't owe any side of
the two party system we have in the U.S. my vote, I'll 'waste' it on
who I would have preferred to be nominated.

Speaking of flawed, the two party system sure falls in to that category.

--
tanx,
Howard

"It looks like the squirrel's been showing everybody
where he keeps his nuts."

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article ,
Curtis L. Russell wrote:

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 02:30:11 GMT, Howard Kveck
wrote:

Danny, I guess I don't really agree with that definition of
"leadership". It isn't so much the being "not being swayed by popular
opinion" that's an issue - it's more the standing by his convictions in the
face of overwhelming evidence that he has chosen the wrong course. GWB has
an incredible unwillingness to even acknowledge news that isn't in full
agreement with his preformed ideas and opinions. I didn't like Reagan, but
the man was a leader. GWB doesn't even come close to measuring up to that
standard.

I think it has more to do with how he makes his decisions. GWB always
seemed to arrive at his views via a consensus process. The consensus
would be determined by the level of the issue. So in politics, GWB
looks for a consensus from the Republican leadership, in campaign
positions, from his advisors and so on. For that reason, I really
believe that he would have been a better peace time president than a
wartime president, and more inclusive in that situation.

Interesting - I haven't been able to detect that was his style at all.
It seems to me (based on several in-depth articles and books written by
various insiders) that he tends to actually listen to a very small number
of advisors, and it has looked like the House and Senate leaders are given
their orders and they run with it. Those who aren't on board are very much
on the receiving end of punishment. (This is one of the things I was
referring to earlier when I mentioned the concentrating of power in the
Executive branch, btw...)

I posted this about his process for taking in the news, and it seems to
apply to his process for gathering the information that he'll need to make
a policy decision. This is from a Wash. Times article by Bill Sammon
(sorry, no link):

---------------
The president prides himself on his ability to detect bias in ostensibly
objective news stories.

"My antennae are finely attuned," he said. "I can figure out what
so-called 'news' pieces are going to be full of opinion, as opposed to
news. So I'm keenly aware of what's in the papers, kind of the issue du
jour. But I'm also aware of the facts."
---------------

Essentially, he doesn't want to hear opinions that don't jibe with the
ones he's already formed.

In several articles I've seen, a common refrain is that when a clear
decision has not already been made before a meeting, he tends to more or
less take the counsel of the last person to speak to him. So there is a lot
of jockeying to be that person, but Karl Rove is the ultimate arbiter of
who that person will be.

I think his decision making is hampered by this very critical factor:
policy is always trumped by politics. (Example: the decision on stem cell
research was apparently made on the basis of how it would effect the
electoral college in *this* election - thanks, Karl!)

His biggest limitation is that his largest set for consensus is the
United States and population. He does not and can not IMO 'include'
the rest of the world in any meaningful way in his decision process.
He is aware of their positions, but they have no standing.

I can understand this POV, but, at the same time, if other countries are
going be affected by one of his decisions, they might have some reason to
think that their postion would be considered.

I don't think he is intransigent or ignorant of the issues as much as
people that arrive at decisions this way are slow - sometimes very
slow - to change their position on major issues. This can be good in
many cases, but it obviously has limitations.

A good article on this whole subject:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...t&articleId=83
43

Kerry changes quickly, way too quickly.

I agree that Kerry is a flawed candidate. But he still is less menacing
to me than GWB.

I'm still voting for Liebermann/McCain. Since I don't owe any side of
the two party system we have in the U.S. my vote, I'll 'waste' it on
who I would have preferred to be nominated.

Speaking of flawed, the two party system sure falls in to that category.

--
tanx,
Howard

"It looks like the squirrel's been showing everybody
where he keeps his nuts."

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:02:34 GMT, "Kirby Krieger"
wrote:

Show me something consensual in his governance or decision-making; show me
evidence that there still exists something resembling a "consensus process".

The issue is the set from which he pulls the consensus. Consensus does
not mean ever widening circles until you include all mankind. Everyone
makes their decision on who makes up the relevant set and looks there.
That relevant set is determined by the subject matter of the decision.

Just as I only need the consensus of my wife and I to decide whether
or not we buy a new couch, but need a wider consensus on where the
family Thanksgiving will be held, Bush looks to smaller sets for some
decisions and wider groups for others. I believe as a peace time
President, he would have been more inclusive. As a war time President,
he has circled the wagons.

And he will never include in any significant way people beyond the
borders of the U.S.A. They are not in any of his consensus groups IMO.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:02:34 GMT, "Kirby Krieger"
wrote:

Show me something consensual in his governance or decision-making; show me
evidence that there still exists something resembling a "consensus process".

The issue is the set from which he pulls the consensus. Consensus does
not mean ever widening circles until you include all mankind. Everyone
makes their decision on who makes up the relevant set and looks there.
That relevant set is determined by the subject matter of the decision.

Just as I only need the consensus of my wife and I to decide whether
or not we buy a new couch, but need a wider consensus on where the
family Thanksgiving will be held, Bush looks to smaller sets for some
decisions and wider groups for others. I believe as a peace time
President, he would have been more inclusive. As a war time President,
he has circled the wagons.

And he will never include in any significant way people beyond the
borders of the U.S.A. They are not in any of his consensus groups IMO.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...