Cynical Nation

No, Barry, I think it's more related to his refrain of "I'd rather be a dictator", and the fact that he doesn't believe he is accountable to anyone. For Bush, checks and balanced don't apply. A law is Constitutional if he says it is. Signing statements that he doesn't intend to obey a law render said law null and void. For Bush, the Iraq war resolution gave him carte blanche to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, in perpetuity, without accounting to anyone.

Has ANYONE made even a HALFWAY logical argument as to why this is necessary?

Experts in social networking analysis say that this "needle in a haystack" approach is the WORST way to determine terrorist networks. You work from the inside out, not the outside in.

You know perfectly well that if the president's name were something other than George W. Bush, the right would be screaming bloody murder about this.

And for the record? I would STILL be screaming bloody murder about this.

> No, Barry, I think it's more related to his refrain of "I'd rather be a dictator"...

His quote was that it would be easier to be a dictator, a statement which is undeniably true. Are you even capable of presenting an honest argument?

>You know perfectly well that if the president's name were something other than George W. Bush, the right would be screaming bloody murder about this.
Of course! And if his name were Bill Clinton, the Left would be utterly silent. What's your point? Welcome to the wonderful world of politics, Jill.

"Seriously, can I an honest question without getting called a "Bush worshipper?"

Nope. This question reflects "Bush worshipping" tendencies and it is unacceptable :)

P.S. You as a libertarian should be the first condemning the collection of data by the goverment on private citizens. Especially when it is done by an administration like that. The whole thing is reminiscent of 1984 of George Orwell. Believe it or not :)

His quote was that it would be easier to be a dictator, a statement which is undeniably true.

Barry,
Do you really think it is appropriate for the president of the largest democracy in the world to be openly expressing his secret wishes to be a "dictator". Even for someone with the very high IQ of George W. Bush. Even if it was a joke. Think about it. He really believes he is above the law and he is entitled to lie and brake the law because he has a "mission from god". Most dictators feel like that one way or another.

> Do you really think it is appropriate for the president of the largest democracy in the world to be openly expressing his secret wishes to be a "dictator". .... Even if it was a joke.

No, probably not.

"Do you really think it is appropriate for the president of the largest democracy in the world to be openly expressing his secret wishes to be a "dictator"."

Well...except that he wasn't expressing a secret wish to be a "dictator." He was explaining a key difference between a dictatorship and democracy.

"He was explaining a key difference between a dictatorship and democracy.
"

No, he said quote..."...as far as I am the dictator". Go back and check his quote. Of course, he was "kidding", but one way or the other it is inappropriate and, in this case, probably reflects some subconscious wishes. Cheers.

OK, I checked. There's no record anywhere that he ever said "...as far as I am the dictator."

OK, I checked. There's no record anywhere that he ever said "...as far as I am the dictator."

Oh really? Next time check better. Here is the exact quote:
"I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

And here is the whole transcript from CNN.

P.S. And dont try to argue "so long" is different from "as far". Cheers.

Oh really? Next time check better. Here is the exact quote:
"I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

But that's not what you said. I checked your alleged quote "...as far as I am the dictator" and found it to be non-existant. "So long" IS different from "as far" whether you like it or not. You misquoted and I called you on it.

Furthermore, your subsequent, more accurate and more contextual quote makes it abundantly clear that George W. Bush was NOT "...openly expressing his secret wishes to be a dictator" not even close.

Finally, look at the date of your source: December 18, 2000. Whether or not you agree that he was the "president elect" on that date, he certainly wasn't the president on that date, so it looks like you were caught in yet another lie.

I checked your alleged quote "...as far as I am the dictator" and found it to be non-existant. "So long" IS different from "as far" whether you like it or not. You misquoted and I called you on it.

It is obvious that you have hard time perceiving reality as it really is. But dont worry, you have good company. Your attempts to find appropriate ways to distort reality are very similar to what Fox News does and even some key figures in the current White House do. The fact remains that as an incoming president your leader said "so long as I am the dictator". Thats a fact and you can not change it. Even by saying that I lied. The facts are there. Cheers.

What an amazing piece of sophistry, Blue Wind. You obviously believe that the truth simply doesn't matter as long as you can pull a few words of context to fabricate your point.

Hey Withoutfearhers,
Do you speak english? Can you explain to me what the difference between "so long as I am a dictator" and "as far as I am a dictator" is in the context that Bush said it? I did not remember the exact senetence, but the meaning of what I wrote was more than accurate. I also gave you the link to the CNN transcript. And you try to tell me that this was "fabrication"?

Fabrication is what you wrote: " He was explaining a key difference between a dictatorship and democracy.

Since when someone saying "So long as I am the dictator" is giving democracy lessons? Give me a break. And cheers.

Your insistence, Blue Wind, that context and accuracy means nothing is jaw-dropping.

Even in your rejoinder you try, once again, to present a sentence fragment as a complete statement.

As long as you continue to slice and dice the sentence to obscure the context, you are lying about what was said.

As far as your question to me is concerned:

"Do you speak english? Can you explain to me what the difference between "so long as I am a dictator" and "as far as I am a dictator" is in the context that Bush said it? I did not remember the exact senetence, but the meaning of what I wrote was more than accurate."

Here's the authoritative, dictionary answer to question about the difference between "as far as" and "as long as:"

----

Main Entry: as far as
Function: conjunction
: to the extent or degree that [is safe, as far as we know] -- often used in expressions like "as far as (something) goes" and "as far as (something) is concerned" to mean "with regard to (something)" [we felt pretty safe as far as the fire was concerned -- Mark Twain] or in expressions like "as far as (someone) is concerned" to mean "in (someone's) opinion" [as far as I'm concerned, it's a mistake]

Main Entry: as long as
Function: conjunction
1 : provided that [can do as they like as long as they have a B average]
2 : INASMUCH AS, SINCE [as long as you're going, I'll go too]

----

The difference, semantically, is very significant, and it's clear that you carefully constructed your "error" to misrepresent what was said. "As far as" implies an existing or perceived state while "as long as" implies a hypothetical or conditional state.

In view of your undisputed attempt to trim the statement down to a fragment which you could use to imply that something which was not said was, I'm inclined to believe that you deliberately misworded the fragment to impute a meaning which was never intended.

Looks like you got caught in yet another lie, Windy.

Withoutfeathers,
Your attempts to dispute the undisputed are kind of funny. Just for the record, Bush said "SO long as" and not "AS long as". According to your criteria, you just deleberately fabricated a sentence he never said, so you can argue against what I wrote. If you would like, I could list a long list of dictionary quotes on differences between "so" and "as". So, I can accuse you that your fabrication was intentional. Just kidding of course.

In any case, I think it is a matter of a public record and we both agree that Bush said ".....so long as I am the dictator". And I have a question for you: Have you ever heard any other president in history talking like that? If you did, please let us know. What Bush said was highly inappropriate. And as I wrote, above please answer a simple question:

Do you really think it is appropriate for the (incoming) president of the largest democracy in the world to be talking like that? Even for someone with the very high IQ of George W. Bush. Even if it was a joke.

> Do you really think it is appropriate for the (incoming) president of the largest democracy in the world to be talking like that?

I don't really keep up with Indian politics.

No, probably not.
I don't really keep up with Indian politics.

Hey Barry,
You sound conflicted. You gave 2 different answers already. By the way:
1. I did not know that Bush was Indian, thats interesting news.
2. India may be a bigger country population wise. But I dont think it qualifies as the "largest democracy" in the world. Parts of India are disputed and dont vote in the election (i.e. Kashmir).

"Your attempts to dispute the undisputed are kind of funny. Just for the record, Bush said "SO long as" and not "AS long as". According to your criteria, you just deleberately fabricated a sentence he never said, so you can argue against what I wrote. If you would like, I could list a long list of dictionary quotes on differences between "so" and "as". So, I can accuse you that your fabrication was intentional. Just kidding of course."

I stand corrected. I guess accuracy does count after all.

Here's the actual dictionary definition of "so long as:"

Main Entry: so long as
Function: conjunction
1 : during and up to the end of the time that : WHILE
2 : provided that

Wait a second...That means that "so long as" is actually a synonym of "as long as" and, therefore, not truly a misrepresentation.

See how that works BW? You don't have to be exact, you just have to be accurate when you attribute intent to someone else.

WF,
Forget it. You simply can not have it both ways. What you wrote was NOT a misrepresentation and neither was what I wrote. However, when you wrote, "He was explaining a key difference between a dictatorship and democracy.", that was a misrepresentation. What he was doing was making a (very low quality) joke.

And you still did not answer my last question to you. Cheers.

Forget it. You simply can not have it both ways. What you wrote was NOT a misrepresentation and neither was what I wrote.

I don't accept that. I explained my position in great detail citing recognized authority on the subject. You simply demand that I accept your position because...well, just because -- I guess you're entitled...

However, when you wrote, "He was explaining a key difference between a dictatorship and democracy.", that was a misrepresentation.

The context makes it very clear that he was explaining that the alternative to complexities of democracy is "dictatorship." You are simply ignoring the context if you don't see that.

What he was doing was making a (very low quality) joke.

That is not my interpretation of the facts.

And you still did not answer my last question to you. Cheers.

Actually, no; I had already given you my answer. But to make it clearer for you: I have no problem with a president elect acknowledging that he must contend with the exigencies of democracy, and that he does not expect the prerogatives of dictatorship.

I don't accept that. I explained my position in great detail citing recognized authority on the subject.

As I wrote above, you apparently have a substantial problem in accepting reality as it really is.

That is not my interpretation of the facts.

If you dont believe that Bush was making a joke when he said that, what can I say?

Anyway, I am done with this post.

As I wrote above, you apparently have a substantial problem in accepting reality as it really is.

No, I have a substantial problem accepting your unsupported definition of reality. As Barry pointed out, India, not the United States, is the world's largest democracy, contrary to your assertion.

If you dont believe that Bush was making a joke when he said that, what can I say?

Ahhh...so now you are changing your story and admitting that Bush was not, in fact, "...openly expressing his secret wishes to be a "dictator." Well, at least you are finally giving up that miserable little prevarication

Anyway, I am done with this post.

Too bad...I was looking forward to seeing just how deep a hole you would dig yourself.

Too bad...I was looking forward to seeing just how deep a hole you would dig yourself.

No problem. I am gone but you are still stuck in a hole in this post. Have fun in your (imaginary) world. Cheers.

Even Jill and Blue Wind couldn't argue AGAINST the data mining by the NSA, they had to resort to trying to make a tongue-in-cheek statement by Bush the focus of their angst.

The phone companies had every right to voluntarily comply with a legitimate NSA request, and as pointed out when Quest refused to comply, no punitive action was taken.

Ergo, there is no story here, certainly NOT about a government over-stepping its bounds.

One of the primary reasons for Bush's plummeting poll numbers is his continuing to alienate his CONSERVATIVE base.

The Liberals despised him when his poll numbers were over 70%!

Thus the drop below that can only be chalked up to the loss of both moderate and Conservative voters.

I don't decry the Religious Right at all, even though I practice no religion at all.

Why?

Because those 50 million or so Religious Conservatives far more than cancel out the Radical Left that is far more dangerous to America.

Also, I count myself among that maybe 30% of the population that sees G W Bush as "NOT Conservative ENOUGH."

Yes, the current administration has made it harder to immigrate here from the Mid-East, BUT not impossible. I support quarantining that entire area off for the forseeable future.

The National Guard on the Mexican border, a good first step ONLY...and it should've been done at the very latest, right after 9/11/01.

Inflict heavy fines on the companies and individuals who hire illegal aliens (say $25,000 per illegal hired) and the jobs they come for, will dry up and they will self-deport.

On domestic security, again, I don't think they've gone far enough. During a war like this one, wherte the bulk of the terorists aren't "poor cave-dwellers" like misguided Liberals are wont to think, but instead, generally come from the more Westernized, highly educated and more affluent members of those societies.

Where'd I get that from?

ALL of the 9/11 suicide killers were highly educated (at least some College) and very affluent by the standards of their respective countries...DITTO for the terrorist bombers that carried out the London attacks.

We NEED to be even more intrusive.

Are you even capable of presenting an honest argument?

If she is, I've yet to see an example.

BTW, this is still my favorite recurring Jill-ism:

In case you doubted that (fill in the blank) will be the Jews of the Bush Reich...