Screaming Penguin

I give much credit to President Bush and Seantor Kerry. They both have a lot of balls. I wouldnt wish the Presidency on anyone. Neither candidate flinched. Both candidates have pluses, and both minuses. I was prepared for Kerry to be our next president. I was prepared to stand by him, just as I will stand by our current president. I actually wanted Senator Kerry to win to subdue all of the negativity.

Throughout the whole campain, I could always count on this site to point out the negatives of our President, and the positives about Senator Kerry. All posting did a great job. I congratulate our President for winning decisivley, and I especially applaud the great Senator for his gracious words of concession. No matter what, we must unite... even in small ways. Thanks ScreamingPenguin.com for seeing all sides of the situation.
I love this country.
(Historical Bush supporter who would have liked Kerry to win)

(as far as the above comment goes... I just learned that Kerry didnt oppose Gay marriages...after hearing from him in a speach that he did beleive marriage can only be defined as the union of man and woman. I fought with a friend of mine. I came to find out we were both right!! )

mike m.

A jab? , nah, not meant to be. It could easily be seen as one. What it should be read as is something like ... I just think that interesting points that were brought up may have been overlooked by me. And its nice to see others take on things.
But the thing is , Bush has been the president, and Kerry has been a Senator. There definatatly will be a stronger microscope for the President. So I can understand why one would feel there may be a bias. I have felt that on occasion. I do realize why that perception lurks in my mind. I often feel for the guy thats got bad luck... and man, George W. has had bad luck coupled with some bad decisions.

I do love the site, have been visiting it for many moons, every day.

mike m.

Uh, I dont think anyone said they were the cream of any crop. What I said was I agreed that it took balls to even want to try to be the president.

And your "Platonic" definition of "high office" however idealistic is not realistic (I say Platonic because I think it was Plato, might have been Aristotle, etc, who said that those what want power should not be allowed to have it, those that do not want power should be required to have it, so on).

Also I disagree with your assertion that Kerry "couldn't make up his mind on a situation. . .". Yes I know he was painted as a flip flopper, but if you look at his actual votes or decisions you wont find much pandering to popular decisions, not any more so than any politician, say one that was against the 911 commission, or one that was against "nation building" and so on (and these are not really digs at Bush although I have plenty of those ;), they are just meant to illustrate that sometimes in very complicated matters, say geopolitics, things are not always black and white and things SHOULD CHANGE based on circumstances and so on). When all is said and done I am SURE Kerry flippers exist, he was a legislator for 20 years, but as I stated in another article here the flip flops portrayed by the RNC are not real flip flops, not one of them. They list bills with 150 non relevant amendments, voting "against the troops" (which is bullshit, it was a vote against a non loan, non congress controlled 78B to the pres, not against "the troops") and items that are easily shown not to be inconsistent if you think about them (although we all know of the Rovian job to paint him as "flipper").

I disagree with you slack on several points. Now I agree that many "things" are not under the control of one man, eg the Pres, but many "actions" are. For example I think its hogwash to blame a President for a "bad economy" but I think it entirely appropriate and apt to blame him for a misguided to begin with, much bungled and poorly planned "military action". Note that the current "war" in Iraq is NOT A WAR. Not by the technical legal definition anyway. Congress did not declare war but weaseled out with an "authorization" that lets the President himself decide. Then the President himself did decide. In fact by all accounts and evidence the President and his people (Cheney, Rumsfled, Rice, Ashcroft) had DECIDED TO ATTACK IRAQ when they took office (per lets say the testimony of Generals involved and Richard Clarke), long before Sept 11 and "WMD" and all sorts of bullshit speak in the bill that authorized the President to make the decision 107th H. J. RES. 114. Or take the entire "faith based initiatives" crapola, all done with "executive orders" and not with laws (such "laws" are unconstitutional). The President is not reposnsible for a lot of crap he gets blamed for, but he is responsible for things he directly decides or directs and that is more than you appear to realize.

As for 9/11, well thats a change of topic but it was a hyperbolic film, thats what Michael Moore does. I thought it was a very good film and very thought provoking, I did not think it make Bush look like an "idiot" at all. I thought it made him look pretty manipulative and it insinuated that maybe he had some ulterior motives, and maybe those motives involve making money. I think Michael Moore really cares about America, sometimes caring involves calling out bullshit and corruption and not just towing the popular line. I know many say he "hates America" and the film was "anti-American" but thats entirely and exactly NOT what it was, it was an attempt to wake people up (unfortunately it didnt work).

Sounds to me like F9/11 did exactly what it WAS intended to do for the prev poster. It was intended to make people think and do research and ask questions. And yes the film was ant-Bush administration and Moore has made no bones about wanting Bush out.

If you saw the film and wondered about the Governor of one state being the brother of the presidential candidate, and the Secretary of state of that state being the Repub party leader, and that state tipping the "balance" in the previous election, and then maybe wondered about BEFORE sept 11 was the US was doing to fight terrorism, and then wondered about the response to terrorism being to attack a country not involved in terrorism, and then wondered about maybe all the inside Bush family deals that reek of conflict of interest and unfair wielding of PUBLIC governmental interest and then you researched any of these things and you found Moore was wrong and that the Bush family is just fine and not corrupt at all and so on then the "intelligent people" were missing from the "research" part your equation.

And you are completely wrong about Moore hating his country. It was cute how you didnt bash the film outright, more passive agressive, but then state that the filmaker hates himself, yeah thats a fair assessment (extreme sarcasm intended).

Now I dont think Moore was entirely fair in his film, he insinuated a lot of shit and led people in directions without saying things directly, and thats not really fair although its technically not a lie, I think he should not have done that because its a crappy thing to do and works on lots of stupid people, but he far from "hates" himself or his country. And that tactic he used, where in the Republican playbook is there a move that does NOT do the same damn thing ("we never said Iraq was involved with Al Quaeda", yeah whatever).

Very astute about the "gay" and hating himself part. Quite Republican of you.