The Bush Administration: A Comix Book or a Horror Novel?
DiscussionsProgressive & Liberal!
Rejoignez LibraryThing pour poster.
Ce sujet est actuellement indiqué comme "en sommeil"—le dernier message date de plus de 90 jours. Vous pouvez le réveiller en postant une réponse.
2teelgee
Definitely horror novel -- slasher film, even. You could not make up worse scenarios than what they've done.
3stuntcat
Horror. i Try to laugh at it- how many people are avoiding reality Is kinda funny. But I laugh til I cry really, the future's so scary.
4jseger9000
Definitely a horror movie. Something along the lines of that Robert Rodriguez movie The Faculty or maybe The Puppet Masters. The people in charge are not what they at first seem (and are probably not human?)...
6RBH228
Horror, in the sense that Plan 9 from Outer Space is a horror film. It's gruesome, but carried out by a gaggle of incompetents.
7silverbooks
Bush II the Sequel: The Bush Dynasty Horror Continues
8silverbooks
Ce message a été supprimé par son auteur
9WholeHouseLibrary
More like a horrible train wreck with the engineer operating from a remote location....
10LeHack
Horror because of the dreadful policies and actions. Our environment will never be the same. I don't think this administration has read the constitution. The only comedy I can think of is when Bush opens his mouth to speak.
11mcna217
It would be a comic book except all his choices will have long lasting consequences. Our grandchildren will be the beneficiaries of his environmental policies and will have to live with the decisions of his Supreme Court appointees. They will also have to pay to treat all the permanently disabled Iraqi vets and to rebuild our national monuments, parks, and infrastructure. Since such a large chunk of the current budget is spent on the war and tax cuts, there has been very little spent on health care, scientific research, education etc. Our future generations will have to pay for this, economically, socially, and politically.
Obviously, a horror story of magnificent proportions.
Obviously, a horror story of magnificent proportions.
13karenmarie
666
14wallerr
>>666
I use to think that was Ronald Wilson Reagan ...but that was too easy.... I underestimated evil....
I use to think that was Ronald Wilson Reagan ...but that was too easy.... I underestimated evil....
16wildbill
I recently bought The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. When someone as straight up and down as Bugliosi says that the President is guilty of murder the situation is a definite horror story. My slogan for the Dubya presidency is "not in my name". I think of the gross mismanagement of the effort to aid the victims of hurricane Katrina caused by the fact that Dubya appointed one of his buddies with no qualifications to run FEMA as just another example of the horror story. There is no humor to a situation where people's lives are destroyed all over the globe because of one man.
18iftbw
I would say horror novel, because, even though most comix fans would be insulted if you said they were reading "funny books," there is nonetheless a broader range of material included in comics. Horror is what the Bush administration is. I have been making a valiant effort to read Jane Mayer's "The Dark Side," but so much of the material revealed in it is either disgusting or horrifying, and it's very difficult to get through without bursting a blood vessel.
19JNagarya
The outright disregard for reality, and thus of the lives of "lesser" humans, between "Katrina" and $150,000 for clothes one will "donate to charity" after wearing them for two-and-one-half-months, are directly connected at the most profound of superficial level.
So the relative low IQs involved -- or, worse, arrogant anti-intellectualism which early set out to prove itself superior to intellegence and truth -- make it a definite horror comic. Horror because of the predictable consequences*, and comics because of the illusionary three-dimensionality of artificial depictions of profoundly superficial social beings one only encounters in the pages of comics.
_____
*"The sleep of reason breeds monsters" -- Goya
_____
A 1950s "B" horror/sci-fi movie that deludedly believes itself true.
And thank you Colin Powell for pretending to be the adult in the room, thus persuading some to believe you have "character" in order that they allow themselves to be duped by you.
So the relative low IQs involved -- or, worse, arrogant anti-intellectualism which early set out to prove itself superior to intellegence and truth -- make it a definite horror comic. Horror because of the predictable consequences*, and comics because of the illusionary three-dimensionality of artificial depictions of profoundly superficial social beings one only encounters in the pages of comics.
_____
*"The sleep of reason breeds monsters" -- Goya
_____
A 1950s "B" horror/sci-fi movie that deludedly believes itself true.
And thank you Colin Powell for pretending to be the adult in the room, thus persuading some to believe you have "character" in order that they allow themselves to be duped by you.
20perdondaris
Ce message a été supprimé par son auteur
21JNagarya
There's more to Buddhism than "myth" (which is not properly the equivalent of "untruth"): it has a substance one can understand and put into practice.
It isn't all about individualism and nothing more than that: trying to walk across a busy street on the green light while believing you can do so uninjured because the cars will pass through you, or you through them, will convince one that objective reality exists -- even without you.
We can transcend "ME!/I!"
It isn't all about individualism and nothing more than that: trying to walk across a busy street on the green light while believing you can do so uninjured because the cars will pass through you, or you through them, will convince one that objective reality exists -- even without you.
We can transcend "ME!/I!"
22JohnGNelson
GW Bush was the inspiration for my dystopian thriller.
I felt we were one crisis away from dystopia during his presidency.
I felt we were one crisis away from dystopia during his presidency.
23barbarajcornett
Ce utilisateur a été suspendu du site.
24JimThomson
Let us remember the not-so-famous quote; "At the follies of Mankind, the Feeling man weeps, and the Thinking man laughs."
25JNagarya
There are many differences between Bush and Obama, beginning with the fact that President Obama was actually elected.
"Has Obama kept his promise to bring the troops home?"
Beyond the fact that President Obama didn't put the troops where they are, he is the Commander-in-Chief, but Congress sets the rules. In other words: he can't bring the troops home without the agreement of Congress.
Same goes for his promise to close Gantanamo: Congress has a say in the matter; and Congress blocked his efforts to do so.
"Does Obama reduce the size of government . . . ?"
I have yet to see anyone who jabbers about the alleged "need" to reduce the size of gov't present any evidence for their assertion that it is necessary to do so. Simply alledging that the gov't is "too big" does not make it so.
"Does Obama protect and defend our borders?"
"Tear down this wall!" -- Ronny Reagan.
"Has Obama kept his promise to bring the troops home?"
Beyond the fact that President Obama didn't put the troops where they are, he is the Commander-in-Chief, but Congress sets the rules. In other words: he can't bring the troops home without the agreement of Congress.
Same goes for his promise to close Gantanamo: Congress has a say in the matter; and Congress blocked his efforts to do so.
"Does Obama reduce the size of government . . . ?"
I have yet to see anyone who jabbers about the alleged "need" to reduce the size of gov't present any evidence for their assertion that it is necessary to do so. Simply alledging that the gov't is "too big" does not make it so.
"Does Obama protect and defend our borders?"
"Tear down this wall!" -- Ronny Reagan.
26Amtep
Oh come on. He doesn't need authorization from Congress to uphold the Constitution or to refrain from committing war crimes.
If the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are held there for crimes then they have a right to a fair and speedy trial. If they're held as prisoners of war then there isn't any question of a trial; they should have been released as soon as victory was declared. In either case they should have been treated well.
And yes, he did put the troops where they are. The vast majority of them are on tours of duty that started after 2008, so they went under his command. What happened to "the buck stops here"? And why wasn't the authority that was good enough for Bush to send troops also good enough for Obama to bring them home? (The 2002 resolution gave him the authority to use the military "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate")
If the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are held there for crimes then they have a right to a fair and speedy trial. If they're held as prisoners of war then there isn't any question of a trial; they should have been released as soon as victory was declared. In either case they should have been treated well.
And yes, he did put the troops where they are. The vast majority of them are on tours of duty that started after 2008, so they went under his command. What happened to "the buck stops here"? And why wasn't the authority that was good enough for Bush to send troops also good enough for Obama to bring them home? (The 2002 resolution gave him the authority to use the military "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate")
27JNagarya
"Oh come on. He doesn't need authorization from Congress to uphold the Constitution or to refrain from committing war crimes."
READ the Constitution -- Art. I. details, at length, how the Congress shall make the rules governing the military, including the well regulated militia: Congress makes the laws, and the Executive is (to be) bound by them. The laws made not only constrain but also compel. And in fact, President Obama brought the Bush criminal enterprises "based on" the law into compliance with the law.
To what "war crimes" do you refer? You not only don't identify any, but don't substantiate that they are that.
"If the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are held there for crimes then they have a right to a fair and speedy trial."
I agree. And so does President Obama. It is the Republicans in Congress who are standing in the way of that happening. Recall the fake controversy over Benghazi: the Republicans were outraged because he didn't immediately -- actual facts be damned -- go to the extreme of calling it "terrorist attack!"
"If they're held as prisoners of war then there isn't any question of a trial; they should have been released as soon as victory was declared. In either case they should have been treated well."
In many instances they shouldn't have been "grabbed" anyway.
Are they "prisoners of war"? Not according to the Republicans in Congress, and their lunatic fringe constituents. That designation -- and the Geneva Conventions -- are sidestepped by means of the BS "combatants" lie. President Obama didn't invent or apply that dodge.
"And yes, he did put the troops where they are."
President Obama did not put the troops in Iraq. Nor did he put them in Afghanistan. What he has been doing -- and only in the latter case -- is follow the plan of withdrawal.
But explain to us how he was to withdraw the troops within the first five minutes after being inaugurated -- especially with the obstructive Republicans in Congress.
"The vast majority of them are on tours of duty that started after 2008, so they went under his command."
Right: he should have withdrawn them within the first five minutes after being inaugurated -- Constitution and Congress be damned.
"What happened to "the buck stops here"?"
What happened to your memories of your experience being the President? Alzheimer's?
It's easy to second guess, ain't it?
"And why wasn't the authority that was good enough for Bush to send troops also good enough for Obama to bring them home?"
Bush ignored not only his own word on the point, but also the law. You want President Obama to do the same?
"(The 2002 resolution gave him the authority to use the military "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate")"
It gave him the authority to do that only as a last resort, after going to the UN. He got the resolution, then ignored all but the "as last resort" part of it.
Make up your mind: you opposed Bush's violations of law, based upon the premise that Presidents shouldn't violate the law. Yet you demand that President Obama violate the law.
Isn't that Bush's attitude? Obey the law when it serves one's purposes, ignore it when it doesn't?
READ the Constitution -- Art. I. details, at length, how the Congress shall make the rules governing the military, including the well regulated militia: Congress makes the laws, and the Executive is (to be) bound by them. The laws made not only constrain but also compel. And in fact, President Obama brought the Bush criminal enterprises "based on" the law into compliance with the law.
To what "war crimes" do you refer? You not only don't identify any, but don't substantiate that they are that.
"If the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are held there for crimes then they have a right to a fair and speedy trial."
I agree. And so does President Obama. It is the Republicans in Congress who are standing in the way of that happening. Recall the fake controversy over Benghazi: the Republicans were outraged because he didn't immediately -- actual facts be damned -- go to the extreme of calling it "terrorist attack!"
"If they're held as prisoners of war then there isn't any question of a trial; they should have been released as soon as victory was declared. In either case they should have been treated well."
In many instances they shouldn't have been "grabbed" anyway.
Are they "prisoners of war"? Not according to the Republicans in Congress, and their lunatic fringe constituents. That designation -- and the Geneva Conventions -- are sidestepped by means of the BS "combatants" lie. President Obama didn't invent or apply that dodge.
"And yes, he did put the troops where they are."
President Obama did not put the troops in Iraq. Nor did he put them in Afghanistan. What he has been doing -- and only in the latter case -- is follow the plan of withdrawal.
But explain to us how he was to withdraw the troops within the first five minutes after being inaugurated -- especially with the obstructive Republicans in Congress.
"The vast majority of them are on tours of duty that started after 2008, so they went under his command."
Right: he should have withdrawn them within the first five minutes after being inaugurated -- Constitution and Congress be damned.
"What happened to "the buck stops here"?"
What happened to your memories of your experience being the President? Alzheimer's?
It's easy to second guess, ain't it?
"And why wasn't the authority that was good enough for Bush to send troops also good enough for Obama to bring them home?"
Bush ignored not only his own word on the point, but also the law. You want President Obama to do the same?
"(The 2002 resolution gave him the authority to use the military "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate")"
It gave him the authority to do that only as a last resort, after going to the UN. He got the resolution, then ignored all but the "as last resort" part of it.
Make up your mind: you opposed Bush's violations of law, based upon the premise that Presidents shouldn't violate the law. Yet you demand that President Obama violate the law.
Isn't that Bush's attitude? Obey the law when it serves one's purposes, ignore it when it doesn't?
Devenir membre pour poster.