Things get bigger if ya cuts 'em!

[Buffalo Tom]

Do you realize you've contradicted yourself in your very post? First, you criticize us for not being critical of FDR, implying he was personally responsible for the some of the supposed ruinous policies you have cited.

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

You people praise FDR without knowing what he did. Sad, really.

Then you say a leader is just a figure-head, as an apology for the poor leadership of George Bush.

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Tom, the leader is nothing more than a figure head. All I care about is policy.

Which is it, Cliff? If you believe a leader is only a figure-head, then the language you have used to criticize FDR's presidency, speaking as if he was the sole impetus behind the New Deal, points, at the very least, to your sloppy thinking process. If you believe a leader has much to do with the formulation of his/her administrations's policies and setting the tone of conduct of his/her administration, then you must accept that Bush is a poor-assed leader for your country for the reasons I've cited already.

Geez, man, you really should stop pretending you're George F. Will on This Week.

[The One and Only...]

FDR WAS a figure head. Replace him with "FDR's administration". I don't feel like throwing in all the extra words.

I support most of Bush's policies, so I wouldn't call them him a "poor-assed" leader. Compared to Clinton, he's a miracle.

[kellychaos]

So explain Bush's departure from the mainstream of the current administration ... a point at which he really stuck his neck out and opposed their will. Name one time.

[sspadowsky]

Originally Posted by doofus

All I care about is policy. Anything else is null, void, and intellectually bankrupt.

Oddly enough, that's a startlingly good description of Bush Administration policy.

Originally Posted by doofus

In addition, he did not say that all things a underling does falls under the leader. He said that a leader must be responsible. He did not say for what.

This is idiotic beyond belief. If a leader is responsible, the fact that he is the leader, means he is responsible. He oversees what is carried out. That's what leaders do, which is why they are called leaders. Again, prickiness for prickiness' sake.

[The One and Only...]

Define responsible, because there is more than one way in which the term is applied.

I really don't see how much different this lie, if you could call it that, is any worse than what average politicians spew from their mouths during election season...

[Anonymous]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

I really don't see how much different this lie, if you could call it that, is any worse than what average politicians spew from their mouths during election season...

Well let me summarize: When your state's governor is running for reelection, and says that he'll increase spending on education, and then doesn't once he's elected, no one is dead.

Compare that to lying about something to start a war, and the body count is slightly higher than zero.

Moreover, the governor lying about his plans for education might irritate the voters, whereas the president lying about WMDs has thoroughly pissed off most of the world. And don't give me any of that "those countries already hated us" BS.

[thebiggameover]

that old dude must have died. now there just a red x there...

[The One and Only...]

This comment has little to do with the war.

Soldiers in the military are trained to die. That's their job. The day the military becomes a gigantic workfare program is the day that we don't need one.

[Anonymous]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Soldiers in the military are trained to die. That's their job.

No, they're trained to fight/survive. Otherwise, their training would consist of learning to make themselves easy targets for enemy fire, and how to kill themselves with their own rifles.

Of course, Bush seems to believe their only purpose is to die, and is trying to instill that upon the troops by cutting their funding here and there.