What this thread needed more of was lesbians!

Pretty much. I think in our age, when red tape is at its peak (I mean, we can really only get more laws, you know?) we'd expect a president to want to navigate it rather than circumvent it. The fact that Bush is not puts people on edge, because it reminds them how tenuous the idea of a democracy is.

It's more than simply a preconception the public has about what the president should do; it's also a window into his character. That he doesn't feel as if he has to answer to anyone is not a good sign, you know?

Actually, I'm bi-sexual. Still, I am in a serious "lesbian" relationship if the distinction means that much to you. That has no bearing on the fact of the matter, though, which is that Bush is a bigot.

I hear you there. Not a good sign is an understatement. His inability to get through a single speech without mincing several words is a pretty bad sign too, wouldn't you say?

Context? Quote looks to be either delightfully patriotic or fascist.

Really? Worse than Nixon, who was threatened with impeachment, and resigned the office of the President in his second term of office? That's a bold statement. It is also a debatable point, since Nixon had a hand in certain positive acts of government. I would have to say, though, that Nixon would probably have to be nominated to the position of "worst president" if worst means most unscrupulous. If worst simply means most ineffectual, then there are several candidates ahead of Bush, who has in fact been most effective at furthering his own political agenda. Or should I say his father's political agenda?

I'd also point out that George W. Bush is in all likelyhood no different from any other Republican president from the specialised viewpoint of a homosexual voter. One of the unchanging truths of politics is that you must appeal to your core demographic and screw everyone else.

I can see your point, and I do admit that there's something to be said for that as an outcome of this war. However, I cannot bring myself to praise Bush, or his policies for bringing about this outcome. It was not his intention, after all. Indeed, I do not think his conviction has ever wavered. I'm quite certain he still believes that entering into this war was the right and proper thing to do. Of course, it's entirely possible that the majority of the voting public still believe that, too. In that case, I suppose that they would claim that Bush has a powerful and heroic legacy. I don't agree, but as an Englishman, my opinion is irrelevant.

It is easy to blame the man, and not the policies, and it's pointless. He will be gone soon enough, and another will take his place. Whether he wears a red or blue ribbon on his lapel is rather irrelevant. There are only a few fixed points in both conservative and liberal doctrine, and the rest is down to personal style.

I do believe that it's a personal style of George W. Bush to gather more power directly to the office of the president, and I can't say I llike what I've seen of his public image one bit. However, it's his results, and his lasting effect that count, because he won't be there for long, in person. Each president does not come to the office with a clean slate, instead they have been place in a particular position by the actions of the former holder of that office. What Bush could, and could not do, has been partly defined by the groundwork laid down by the former presidents. It is for that reason that it's pointless to blame the man. Whatever you want to blame Bush for, you have to also blame Clinton, to a certain extent, and so forth.

That's the case in politics everywhere, of course. We're still feeling the shockwaves of the Major adminstration over here in Britain, and that ended in the mid 90s. If we're very lucky, the next election might see that legacy finally laid to rest. It has only taken a decade.

I keep hearing this, and things like it, brought up as an argument against Bush; that he's only doing what his father wants. Other than the fact that George Bush is George W. Bush's father, where does it come from? If their political agendas are the same, George Bush has been notably quiet about it, and his closest advisors have been publically unenthusiastic or even opposed to it.

If George W. Bush's agenda was the same as his father's, it would be reasonable to assume that George Bush and his inner circle would be vocal in their support. But they aren't.

Maybe that's just to deceive us.

That depends on what you think was going on in Cheney's head when he was quoted as to saying that. In early 2001 I believe. It's generally assumed that he was referring to the American dependency on cars and our suburban-centric lifestyles.

Intentions don't really matter at this point. The War is on. I didn't mean to say that he should be praised, just that I don't really think intentions have mattered much to history. Only the outcome, or the light in which said outcome was portrayed. Given Bush's public noterioty, it does not bode well for him.

I think every president who has held the office has had a goal of preserving and expanding the power/influence of the office. Not just for themselves, but for their predesscors. Starting from the beginning with Washington. Centralized authorities tend to be authortarian by nature. Drawing more powers to themselves. Can't name a historic example to the contrary. This was probably the prime motivation behind the decentralized Articles of Confederation.

A desire to emulate, or even surpass his father perhaps? I'm no expert, so I'll just link you to an old article in the Guardian where a psychologist talks in detail about Bush's psyche.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...033904,00.html

An old article, but still entirely relevant to the discussion at hand.

It comes from the tongue-in-cheek observation that George Bush wanted Saddam Hussain's head on a silver platter, and George W. Bush seems to have delivered. It's not an argument against Bush, as such, when I say it. It's simply the observation that the grudge seems to have been passed down from father to son. I don't suggest that George W. Bush is his father's puppet, in any way. I perhaps phrased that in a misleading way.

Just to clarify, are we both talking about the same thing here? I'm talking about attempting to take those powers which rightfully belong to the other branches of the United States Government, and bring them directly under the personal control of the office of the President. I'm sure you've read a great deal about George W. Bush's views in this matter, so I won't insult you by repeating his statements. All I will say is that if the system of checks and balances is intended to protect the American people from abuse of governmental powers, then the erosion of that system is something to be greatly concerned about. I'm aware that statement is pretty much self-evident, but wouldn't you agree that George W. Bush has done his part to erode that system, and will probably try to do more?

Tongue in cheek statement or not, it might have a psychological basis.

Yeah, we're talking about the same thing.

Absolutely. I don't expect any less from the people that will hold the office after he does. I hate to say it, but nothing Bush has done is a historical precedant. I'd be more keen to denounce him if it was. The system to a great extent is already eroded. Bush's predecessors have set down an awful lot of groundwork in that regard. He's just continuing to forge that particular path.

We probably have the best form of governing, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. Nor that we have ideal people running it. Oh well, at least it isn't communism. :D

How can intentions not matter? If someone accidentally accomplishes something positive, then they aren't going to be remembered as a great visionary. They'll be remembered for pulling a Homer.

I'll use the worse recent historical example I can. Adolf Hitler was trying to build a utopia. To take that evolutionary step up for mankind. Mein Kampf if you've read it, make's this painfully clear. Jews, mentally ill, and other "sub-humans" were just holding the human race back on it's next evolutionary step to the "master race". Yet people do not judge Hitler by his intentions. We judge him by the genocide that was brought about by his utopian thinking.
His actions and the overall outcome mattered more then his intentions.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Um, I think I should point out that your example was really bad. Seriously. Adolf Hitler was a bonafide sociopath with delusions of grandeur. He based everything he did on his own bias, with absolutely no facts supporting him whatsoever. His intention was not just to create a utopia, his intention was to wipe out anything that didn't fall into his master plan so as to create a utopia for a race he hand-picked himself.

His intentions were just as bad as his actions.

I think you're confusing the intention with the means. Hitler intended to create a utopia. The means to create that was to rid the world of undesirables.

Yes, he put in writing and spoke about the need to put forth the final solution. If he had left it there we wouldn't have much to discuss other than criticizing his philosophy.

The thing that made it so much worse was the fact that he acted upon those thoughts. The execution of his ideas is what burns into the collective history.

As they say, "actions speak louder than words". However, in the era where thoughtcrime may become a reality, both actions and words may have equal weight and therefore intention will be under greater scrutiny.

You know, I've got an entire book on my desk called "Serendipity: Accidental Discoveries in Science" that details many of the scientific advances that were made by accident or by someone meaning to do something else. For the most part, history doesn't rememember these people found their discovery by accident, but remembers that they were the one to have found it.

Absolutely. But science and politics operate fairly differently. One's character is much more important in a political setting than in a scientific one.

Also scientists who accientaly happened upon a discovery later intentionally developed and investigated it right? That's a far cry from accidentally setting things in motion that other people would subsequently pick up on and expand on.

Yes, but how much of science or philosophy (religion aside) could honestly be said to be based on facts? Eugenics is a bastard mix of both. It had plenty of valid scientific support in that particular age.

That's certainly a acceptable and plausible view that differs from mine. Something historians argue over too. But only Hitler knew his intentions. Maybe not even he did, if he was a complete lunatic near the end. So it's impossible to tell what he intended. That's why history never focuses on intentions. It's just a interesting point of debate/contention.

From a legal standpoint intention counts for a lot already. Only counting when you're speaking in the present tense. It's hard, if not impossible to determine either way. Despite this, there's still a huge difference between the penalties for a premeditated murder and involuntary manslaughter.

As for thoughtcrime/precrime, technology make's it easier to scam the system. It's never been easier to steal somebody's identity. Just get their social security number and it's practically done. It seems like to me that with every step forward there will be two steps backwards.

Not in all cases. In some cases an exterior authority physically prevented them from following up on their discoveries.

Yeah, I think we are already dwelling heavily into Minority Report territory. Take all these Dateline (IIRC) stories where they do those sting operations to catch internet predators. I work in law enforcement, and even I can't figure out how any of the charges stick.

These news people are only pretending to be underage and luring these "predators" to their houses in order to get them arrested based on what they "thought" they were going there to do. In fact, from the reports I've seen, there were never any children used in these sting operations. Now I may not be a typical police officer, and that stuff may be way outside my field of expertise, but I would almost think this constitutes not only entrapment, but also punishing someone for a crime they "thought" about committing.

Since when did we punish people based on thoughts and intentions? Since when were thoughts and intentions crimes? I know it's important to protect children and all, but this is ridiculous and overboard. Heck, I had a friend who, when she was underage, actually used grown men to satisfy her sexual desires, and she turned out perfectly fine (no pregnancies, no STDs); she was smart and actually put a lot of forethought into intentionally reeling in older men, and she knew exactly what she was doing. Even today, I'd have to consider her the predator over the older men she had sex with! Not all young girls are so innocent. Of course, bottom line is I think it's unjustified to punish someone based on what they think about doing as opposed to what they actually do.

I don't see how it constitutes a legal sting, basically. Like with a normal sting, the cops use a real teenager to, say, buy a pack of cigarettes. Until the transaction is complete, no crime has been committed and no action can be taken. I would think that, in order for these Dateline stings to be legal, not only would they need an actual child on the computer to lure the predators over, but the child would have to be present and the predator would have to actually try to solicit sex out of the child.

Like I said, reeks of Minority Report.

I agree with you, except for this. I mean, punishments are greatly influenced by someone's intent during a crime. But only if a crime has actually taken place, easiest example is different degrees of murder/manslaughter. I know you know that, just in case another reader took you statement at face value.

I don't know much/anything about these stings, but from what I can gather they would/should be illegal in this country. It'd be fantastic if someone has a link as to how these work in the legal system.

I mean, how often do people come *this* close to doing something they shouldn't, and then decide against it. How does one justify punishing them for being close enough to a criminal?

It's cool, I understand, and yes I know what you're talking about. Heh wouldn't be very good at my job if I didn't. :p Anyway, yeah, my main point was punishing people for their intent when a crime hasn't actually been committed.

If I had the time, I'd try to find out personally, but work usually leads me down a different path. So yeah, if someone could figure that out, it'd be swell.

Exactly. Been there myself, heh. If I was arrested for every time I thought about breaking the law, I'd have life in prison by now.

What this thread needs more of are lesbians with attention-seeking issues.

You are the dumbest nigger in Compton.

Maybe they arrest them not for their actions during the show, but for the metric fuckton of child porn that's later found on their PC.

Yeah, I get the message, you're a bigot too, gotcha.

Better a bigot than being dumb as sin.

There can be any number of reasons why a person would visit the home of a vastly younger friend after discussing sex!

So, Patty, you'd be in support of using actual minors in these sting operations? Should the police apprehend the guy before or after he's unclothed?