Sometimes people need to slap the president for his own good
GreyFlcn
Join Date: 2006-12-19 Member: 59134Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2006-12-19 Member: 59134Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Or else</div><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
<b>Plug it in, fire it up, Mr. President </b>
The Detroit News
Credit Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally with saving the leader of the free world from self-immolation.
Mulally told journalists at the New York auto show that he intervened to prevent President Bush from plugging an electrical cord into the hydrogen tank of Ford's hydrogen-electric plug-in hybrid at the White House last week. Ford wanted to give the Commander-in-Chief an actual demonstration of the innovative vehicle, so the automaker arranged for an electrical outlet to be installed on the South Lawn and ran a charging cord to the hybrid. However, as Mulally followed Bush out to the car, he noticed someone had left the cord lying at the rear of the vehicle, near the fuel tank.
"I just thought, 'Oh my goodness!' So, I started walking faster, and the President walked faster and he got to the cord before I did. I violated all the protocols. I touched the President. I grabbed his arm and I moved him up to the front," Mulally said. "I wanted the president to make sure he plugged into the electricity, not into the hydrogen This is all off the record, right?"
Contributors: Bryce G. Hoffman and Louis Aguilar
<a href="http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070407/AUTO01/704070338/1148" target="_blank">http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic.../704070338/1148</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oddly, I'm thankful.
Since I wouldn't really want to have "President Cheney".
<b>Plug it in, fire it up, Mr. President </b>
The Detroit News
Credit Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally with saving the leader of the free world from self-immolation.
Mulally told journalists at the New York auto show that he intervened to prevent President Bush from plugging an electrical cord into the hydrogen tank of Ford's hydrogen-electric plug-in hybrid at the White House last week. Ford wanted to give the Commander-in-Chief an actual demonstration of the innovative vehicle, so the automaker arranged for an electrical outlet to be installed on the South Lawn and ran a charging cord to the hybrid. However, as Mulally followed Bush out to the car, he noticed someone had left the cord lying at the rear of the vehicle, near the fuel tank.
"I just thought, 'Oh my goodness!' So, I started walking faster, and the President walked faster and he got to the cord before I did. I violated all the protocols. I touched the President. I grabbed his arm and I moved him up to the front," Mulally said. "I wanted the president to make sure he plugged into the electricity, not into the hydrogen This is all off the record, right?"
Contributors: Bryce G. Hoffman and Louis Aguilar
<a href="http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070407/AUTO01/704070338/1148" target="_blank">http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic.../704070338/1148</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oddly, I'm thankful.
Since I wouldn't really want to have "President Cheney".
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
There's absolutely no reason to somehow conclude that the president is stupid. In fact, if you CAN plug the electric cord into the hydrogen tank, that's a SERIOUS design flaw which will need to be corrected pronto.
Yay! Even MORE Bush bashing for no good reason. I mean, come on. If it looks like an electric plug to fit a cord, people (that includes you, me, and yes the president) will plug it in there. If the cord is laying beside it, it's even more evidence that a "rational" person would use to decide that this is the correct plug. How would anyone who didn't design and build the thing know different. The guy who stopped him did his job, which was to make sure the demo went smoothly.
There's absolutely no reason to somehow conclude that the president is stupid. In fact, if you CAN plug the electric cord into the hydrogen tank, that's a SERIOUS design flaw which will need to be corrected pronto.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll bash Bush alongside the best, but yeah...I probably would have done the same thing.
Yay! Even MORE Bush bashing for no good reason. I mean, come on. If it looks like an electric plug to fit a cord, people (that includes you, me, and yes the president) will plug it in there. If the cord is laying beside it, it's even more evidence that a "rational" person would use to decide that this is the correct plug. How would anyone who didn't design and build the thing know different. The guy who stopped him did his job, which was to make sure the demo went smoothly.
There's absolutely no reason to somehow conclude that the president is stupid. In fact, if you CAN plug the electric cord into the hydrogen tank, that's a SERIOUS design flaw which will need to be corrected pronto.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can plug an electrical cord into a gas tank too... It would be pretty stupid to do, but you could kindof try. Infact, static charge is a major contributor to gas station fires, to the point where many stations now have signs warning you not to touch the gas tank with your fingers. It's probably more an issue of the port of the hydrogen tank looking different then a normal gas tank and the electrical port likely having some non standard input design. Not really a design flaw, but something that must be understood before use.
Seriously, the Bush bashing is really getting old. Just because the guy can't speak worth crap at public events doesn't mean he's unintelligent. What's the discussion here? That the President made a mistake that any of us could have made?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Qft... GreyFlcn's got to much time on his hands, it seems. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />
You can plug an electrical cord into a gas tank too... It would be pretty stupid to do, but you could kindof try. Infact, static charge is a major contributor to gas station fires, to the point where many stations now have signs warning you not to touch the gas tank with your fingers. It's probably more an issue of the port of the hydrogen tank looking different then a normal gas tank and the electrical port likely having some non standard input design. Not really a design flaw, but something that must be understood before use.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not quite true. Gas tank fires are tied mainly to folks to want to get back in their car and sit while the tank fills up. That's when they get statically charged. When they pull the nozzle out, it's possible that a spark could ark between the either the tip of the nozzle and the car or their finger and the car, and it's further possible that the fuel vapor/air mixture conditions are <i>just</i> right for combustion.
If you could somehow actually "plug" an electric cord directly into the tank, where much less oxygen exists, I doubt it would even be unstable enough to draw current at all, let alone kick off a fire. Since pure gasoline is a liquid and contains no air, it would kind of be like the trick where you push a lit match into a bucket of gas so fast that the vapors don't ignite and the match is put out in the gas itself (DON'T try that <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />). I've never seen it work, but it's theoretically possible.
As a side note from all this, if you wanna lessen your chances of a fuel fire during an accident, keep your tank nearly full as opposed to nearly empty. It's good for your fuel pump, your tank bed, your whole car really. AND there's less air in the tank during an accident so it's less likely to go boom. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Anyway, to get back on topic. Hydrogen is quite a bit more unstable. It still would need oxygen, so a tank fully gorged with H2 wouldn't be as dangerous as if that H2 were escaping, but you still shouldn't allow a user to plug electrical cords into the tank of H2. They shouldn't look the same, they shouldn't feel the same, and it shouldn't even be possible.
There's absolutely no reason to somehow conclude that the president is stupid.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You appear to be the only one who concluded that. The only thing worse than people bashing bush for no good reason, is people defending him blindly.
Seriously though. When being presented with a hydrogen fuel demonstration, I'd be *extremely* careful about plugging anything into anything. A basic understanding of science is ( unfortunately ) not a requisite for running a country, so I can't see how Bush's error can be held against him anyway. Just let it go Rob, all your recent googling of this technology is not needed, your beloved Mr. President is safe on this one
The two of you are making the same assumption: Both of you assume that the hydrogen connector would fit the electrical connection. I see nothing to suggest such is the case, and I guess the guy who intervened was just worried about sparks or something.
--Scythe--
The whole thing seems kinds of stupid to me, and those who rush to bash bush and rush to defend him are equally guilty of taking their eye off the actual point at hand.
Yay. Another flaming torch against the electric car zombie.
--Scythe--
P.S. I should also note that this is a good zombie. Zombie Jesus, even.
You appear to be the only one who concluded that. The only thing worse than people bashing bush for no good reason, is people defending him blindly.
Seriously though. When being presented with a hydrogen fuel demonstration, I'd be *extremely* careful about plugging anything into anything. A basic understanding of science is ( unfortunately ) not a requisite for running a country, so I can't see how Bush's error can be held against him anyway. Just let it go Rob, all your recent googling of this technology is not needed, your beloved Mr. President is safe on this one
The two of you are making the same assumption: Both of you assume that the hydrogen connector would fit the electrical connection. I see nothing to suggest such is the case, and I guess the guy who intervened was just worried about sparks or something.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...
Thanks for assuming that I had to google so I could feel intellectually capable of holding a discussion on the topic. Gee, you smart people are so smart sometimes I feel like I should kill myself because I can't compare.
Worse still, thanks for turning the act of LEARNING into an insult. Double props. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that bashing Bush for this is out of line, as you can see by the first two replies after mine. But, it's okay. You can just call me stupid.
Thanks for assuming that I had to google so I could feel intellectually capable of holding a discussion on the topic.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd hardly call knowing some basic high-school facts about a subject as 'intellectual', but whatever.
I'm sorry, but your random collection of facts on the topic smell of recently acquired knowledge. Almost as if you've educated yourself on the subject matter in order to artificially inflate your claims. For an added bonus, none of them are really relevant to the discussion. Gee Mr Bush, had you kept your tank full of gas, then when you plugged electricery into the hydrogen, and had that hydrogen been gas in a car crash, you would have been 1.14gigawats less likely to have exploded.
You appear to be the only one who concluded that. The only thing worse than people bashing bush for no good reason, is people defending him blindly.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interestingly enough, the former Swedish prime minister Göran Persson (social democrat) said in his video diary that Bush is very intelligent. He concluded that it was a very unfortunate and dangerous combination for someone to be that smart and determined and still be so incredibly wrong.
I'd hardly call knowing some basic high-school facts about a subject as 'intellectual', but whatever.
I'm sorry, but your random collection of facts on the topic smell of recently acquired knowledge. Almost as if you've educated yourself on the subject matter in order to artificially inflate your claims. For an added bonus, none of them are really relevant to the discussion. Gee Mr Bush, had you kept your tank full of gas, then when you plugged electricery into the hydrogen, and had that hydrogen been gas in a car crash, you would have been 1.14gigawats less likely to have exploded.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the hell is a gigawatt?
edit: I'm not rushing to defend anyone, by the way, it just nerves me when people call someone an idiot and use their speech screw-ups, mis-plugs or attempting-the-opening-of-locked-doors as the reason, <i>president or not.</i>
Why does everyone think Bush is dumb? I think hes a smart guy, hes just clumsy. When someone continually screws up their speeches and even tries to leave through a locked door as a public (conference?), it only adds irrelevant fuel to a very controversial fire with all the topics our country stands on now. Not everyone is going to solidly agree on one solution for a topic, and when you handle hot ones such as the War in Iraq (or anything remotely related) people are going to have extremely different opinions. Calling someone stupid or an idiot is something second graders would do in an argument. I'm quite sure if you took an IQ test against Bush he'd beat you, and if not, do exceedingly well above the 'average person.' Who cares if he marked E because it was the last bubble on his little answer sheet and he automatically assumed it was D, because most commonly there are only four answers to a question, not five - hes still smart.
edit: I'm not rushing to defend anyone, by the way, it just nerves me when people call someone an idiot and use their speech screw-ups, mis-plugs or attempting-the-opening-of-locked-doors as the reason, <i>president or not.</i>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're talking about a guy who's in charge of almost 10,000 nuclear warheads.
"Clumsy" is not a vice I would want a person in his position to have.
You're talking about a guy who's in charge of almost 10,000 nuclear warheads.
"Clumsy" is not a vice I would want a person in his position to have.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the sort of condescending bullish that we're trying to speak out against. Where does clumsiness come into play when it comes to a decision to launch a nuke? The two man system and launch codes prevents anybody from going off the deep end, clumsiness plays no factor in it at all. It's not as if there's actually a shiny red button that says "NUKE <strike>SOVET UNION</strike> RUSSIA" on his desk.
Quite frankly, the President is probably smarter than most of the people here, and if not smarter, at least more knowledgeable. The guy's been in public service almost all his life, it's not as if he's incompetent. Otherwise he would have been impeached a long time ago.
Nothing, my point is that I'd like the man who's in charge of the most powerful country in the world to at least be smart enough to say his ###### speeches correctly. If he's clumsy enough to ###### up something as simple as that what the ###### will he mess up next?
hashhashhashhashhashhash.
Shock and Awe. Yeah, that'll do it. Fire lots of bombs and Iraq will roll over so we can scratch its belly.
I think you'll find that what you speak out against is simply a generic vocalisation of a deep dissatisfaction with the Bush administration. You can choose to fight the fight on every miniscule point of irrelevance, but nothing will change the fact that Bush is now one of the least popular presidents in American history. The question on the rest of the world's mind is: Why the **** did it take so long for you to catch on?
Well, where was this failsafe when Bush was parroting on about WOMD in Iraq then? I think the general wading through Iraq, as orchestrated by the oval office and associated staff, would be aptly described as 'clumsy'.
Shock and Awe. Yeah, that'll do it. Fire lots of bombs and Iraq will roll over so we can scratch its belly.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But, the Iraqi government DID roll over. The war lasted about a week didn't it? What we're in now is the aftermath, which I'm sure most would agree has become much more entangled than anticipated. Don't try to lump the tactical brilliance of the convential war against a convential country with what happened after. Shock and Awe did it's job very nicely.
<!--quoteo(post=1620109:date=Apr 10 2007, 03:43 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Apr 10 2007, 03:43 PM) [snapback]1620109[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I think you'll find that what you speak out against is simply a generic vocalisation of a deep dissatisfaction with the Bush administration. You can choose to fight the fight on every miniscule point of irrelevance, but nothing will change the fact that Bush is now one of the least popular presidents in American history. The question on the rest of the world's mind is: Why the **** did it take so long for you to catch on?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lincoln was hated in his day, too. What I find interesting is how often yall talk about us "seeing the world through republican colored glasses" when we choose to fight what the majority of the world thinks is somehow right. You, sir, are part of the most popular movement in the world right now. Hasn't it always been the endevour of thinkers to challenge what is held in popularity?
But, the Iraqi government DID roll over. The war lasted about a week didn't it?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not disputing that, nor did I expect it to fail at the time, but the consequences of it were predicted by alot of objectors. The problem was that a clumsy administration pretty much ignored any advice that contradicted the approach on the table, and some of those were simply fired for giving their advice. To say that 'Shock and Awe' succeeded is sidestepping the issue anyway. Pretty much any strategy employed by the far superior US would have succeeded, but perhaps there were other less pompous strategies that would not have left a lot of Iraq in total ruin and would not have turned your natural allies against you. Remember, the discussion here isn't about absolutes of success or failure, but about president Bush's capabilities. With the power America has, there was little chance of it failing, the question is: What did Bush personally contribute to the endevaour? I don't think it's stretching credibility to view the mass shift in approval rating on this issue as a sign that the great American nation is finally waking up and smelling the coffee.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
What we're in now is the aftermath, which I'm sure most would agree has become much more entangled than anticipated.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd say a lot of people expected it to be as entangled as this, though I doubt such opinions were aired much in the US media given the very specific political climate at the time.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Don't try to lump the tactical brilliance of the convential war against a convential country with what happened after.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, actually, I think this is kind of critical. When America basically went in alone, against the grain of international political process, without much engagement with the resitance in Iraq, with the "we'll smoke 'm out - you're either with us or against us" bravado, who is surprised things didn't go according to plan?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Lincoln was hated in his day, too.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Surely not? The guy who's decisions lead up to a civil war was hated? Astounding!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
What I find interesting is how often yall talk about us "seeing the world through republican colored glasses" when we choose to fight what the majority of the world thinks is somehow right. You, sir, are part of the most popular movement in the world right now. Hasn't it always been the endevour of thinkers to challenge what is held in popularity?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure what point you are making here. The first sentence seems to be trying to establish that you can't possibly be deluded by an unpopular cause or something. That because you are in a minority but resolute in your defence of republican policy that there must be some extra level of validity to the position. Secondly, I'm not part of any movement. I'm certainly not anti-American, and I could care less about the popularity of such a movement, were I to join one. Taking your point though, I would have thought that the endevour of thinkers is to challenge what is false or wrong. This is a gross generalisation, because thinkers of all capabilities have been invovled in all sides of every conflict throughout history.
I'm not disputing that, nor did I expect it to fail at the time, but the consequences of it were predicted by alot of objectors. The problem was that a clumsy administration pretty much ignored any advice that contradicted the approach on the table, and some of those were simply fired for giving their advice. To say that 'Shock and Awe' succeeded is sidestepping the issue anyway. Pretty much any strategy employed by the far superior US would have succeeded, but perhaps there were other less pompous strategies that would not have left a lot of Iraq in total ruin and would not have turned your natural allies against you. Remember, the discussion here isn't about absolutes of success or failure, but about president Bush's capabilities. With the power America has, there was little chance of it failing, the question is: What did Bush personally contribute to the endevaour? I don't think it's stretching credibility to view the mass shift in approval rating on this issue as a sign that the great American nation is finally waking up and smelling the coffee.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I for one am glad that our generals didn't underestimate the power of Iraq. A nation that has been known to use chemical weapons, had three of the world's top intelligence agencies believing that weapons of mass destruction did exist, is well trained and combat hardened, and uses slightly dated but still quite deadly left over soviet equipment is hardly a pushover.
The problem with the overwhelming force and logisitical planning we put into both gulf wars is that it makes it seem easy. It's not. The amount of equipment and manpower moved during a few weeks in the first gulf war was more than that of the normandy invasion during WWII which took two years to plan. <a href="http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/5254/21699/01005635.pdf?arnumber=1005635" target="_blank">pdf</a>
So, no, not pretty much any strategy. Not by a longshot. The strategy persued saved the most American, and I dare say Iraqi, lives. Property can be rebuilt/replaced.
I can't tell you what Bush personally contributed, because I honestly don't know. Fortitude, the proper indifference to hardship required of a commander perhaps?
<!--quoteo(post=1620131:date=Apr 10 2007, 05:27 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Apr 10 2007, 05:27 PM) [snapback]1620131[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Surely not? The guy who's decisions lead up to a civil war was hated? Astounding!
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's that supposed to mean? He didn't cause the civil war, that had been coming for quite some time. I'll grant you that the north was mostly responsible. Not only did they have no moral high ground, as their argument for the end of slavery was that "it's cheaper to use immegrants until they die and then buy new ones," but they were also pompus enough to force the issue.
What Lincoln did was understand that preserving the union was of the uptmost importance and stand in the fire to keep it together. I don't understand what you're trying to say. You'd rather have an extra nation in North America today? Canada, US, and Confederate states?
<!--quoteo(post=1620131:date=Apr 10 2007, 05:27 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Apr 10 2007, 05:27 PM) [snapback]1620131[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I'm not sure what point you are making here. The first sentence seems to be trying to establish that you can't possibly be deluded by an unpopular cause or something. That because you are in a minority but resolute in your defence of republican policy that there must be some extra level of validity to the position. Secondly, I'm not part of any movement. I'm certainly not anti-American, and I could care less about the popularity of such a movement, were I to join one. Taking your point though, I would have thought that the endevour of thinkers is to challenge what is false or wrong. This is a gross generalisation, because thinkers of all capabilities have been invovled in all sides of every conflict throughout history.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I'm trying to say is that just because I don't automatically agree with what everyone's saying doesn't make me an idiot. Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of the insults. And being that the insults are not part of a healthy discussion, it only infuriates me even more.
Its like blaming Britney Spears for the way Pepsi tastes.
From what i've seen, most plug-in cars use a simple electrical extension cord, with the female end plugging into the car.
On top of that, the "standard" hydrogen nozzle uses a clamping system as well as a data-interface port to make sure everything fuels up properly.
So if it's possible to somehow jam the female end of an extension cord into a closed valve and get some sort of explosion, then your car isn't designed too well.
Well, I for one am glad that our generals didn't underestimate the power of Iraq. A nation that has been known to use chemical weapons, had three of the world's top intelligence agencies believing that weapons of mass destruction did exist, is well trained and combat hardened, and uses slightly dated but still quite deadly left over soviet equipment is hardly a pushover.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This would be an interesting response had it been even remotely related to anything I said. Nowhere did I suggest that the US should underestimate Iraq. Shock and Awe is about the overuse of force to force an early surrender. If your short term goal is a quick surrender of a despot, then yeah, good plan. You certainly liberated Iraq from Saddam, the problem is that now they want to be liberated from you.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
The problem with the overwhelming force and logisitical planning we put into both gulf wars is that it makes it seem easy. It's not. The amount of equipment and manpower moved during a few weeks in the first gulf war was more than that of the normandy invasion during WWII which took two years to plan. <a href="http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/5254/21699/01005635.pdf?arnumber=1005635" target="_blank">pdf</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said it was easy. I wasn't talking about deploying your troops and equipment, I was talking about how you choose to utilise them in your chosen strategy.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
So, no, not pretty much any strategy. Not by a longshot. The strategy persued saved the most American, and I dare say Iraqi, lives. Property can be rebuilt/replaced.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a whole load of speculation, none of it really related to Bush's competency. If you wish to demonstrate that Bush has made some good decisions then I'll save you the trouble by agreeing with you now. It is possible to be incompetent while getting some thing right. It is also possible to be totally competent while making mistakes.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I can't tell you what Bush personally contributed, because I honestly don't know. Fortitude, the proper indifference to hardship required of a commander perhaps?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would rank Compassion as a much higher requisite of a commander. This guy is more attached to the idea of a death penalty than he is to the guilt or innocence of a case presented to him for review even though stastically 7% of all death row inmates are innocent? That's serious fortitude, and serious hardship, and I'm grateful I don't have to live under his regime.
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views/061700-102.htm" target="_blank">http://www.commondreams.org/views/061700-102.htm</a>
" There are two ways of understanding that comment. Either Governor Bush was contemptuous of the facts or, on a matter of life and death, he did not care."
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
What's that supposed to mean? He didn't cause the civil war, that had been coming for quite some time. I'll grant you that the north was mostly responsible. Not only did they have no moral high ground, as their argument for the end of slavery was that "it's cheaper to use immegrants until they die and then buy new ones," but they were also pompus enough to force the issue.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, the anti-slave lobby was reasonably strong and humanitarian but would never win a majority if push came to shove. The pragmatic politicians who needed an end to slavery put forward a middle ground argument, that appealed to a sense of greed and a desire for economic prosperity. Lincoln never intended for the freed slaved to have full citizenship, that came later, but the point is that you can't judge people out of the context of the culture they live in. For his time, Lincoln was what would probably now be considered "a crazed looney leftists", even though by our standards, he still had quite a lot of very primitive ideas about society.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
What Lincoln did was understand that preserving the union was of the uptmost importance and stand in the fire to keep it together.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't dispute that. In fact, I believe all I did was point out that in a time when people are willing to kill their brethren over politics, don't be surprised that political leaders are hated.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I don't understand what you're trying to say. You'd rather have an extra nation in North America today? Canada, US, and Confederate states?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See what you did here? Again, I simply pointed out that it isn't surprised that there were strong feelings of hate towards Lincoln. I really have trouble figuring out how you jump to these bizarre connections and ask these really outlandish questions.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
What I'm trying to say is that just because I don't automatically agree with what everyone's saying doesn't make me an idiot. Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of the insults. And being that the insults are not part of a healthy discussion, it only infuriates me even more.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What insults? Can you highlight them for me? I don't consider you an idiot Rob, just misguided <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> No seriously, if I'm getting offensive just tell me.
remind me, again, you're in iraq because of the ... was it anthrax this week?
Traditionally we think of them as the rulers of their country. In reality they are just the Ambassadors. They are the PR department. Like i was saying before, if a celebrity endorses a product it doesn't mean they control how its made. Same with Bush, he endorses the war, but hes not in control of it.
By our Constitution, the President is both head of state and government. He's also at the apex of the executive department. That means he has absolute authority over the Federal bureaucracy, which is over 3 million strong. 5 million if you count the armed forces. He can send, by simple executive order, thousands of marines anywhere in on the globe without Congressional approval.
I think what you're trying to say is that the President dictates grand strategy. His aides, secretaries, and generals will implement the ground level strategy, which is mostly out of his hands. And then the troops and employees in the trench will implement the tactics, which he has absolutely no control over.
To put it in the simplest way, we would not be in Iraq today if the President didn't want us to be in Iraq. The President can get the ball rolling. But then he relies on his bureaucracy to keep it rolling. Maybe that's what you were trying to say?
The President is the most powerful man in government, the speaker of the house is second. But that power is definitely actual and not nominal.