In a different era...

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Ok guys I've been thinking as of late with about all the new Bush speeches regarding his decisions and the latest hoopla in the congress and, white house reactions I think that in a different era Bush would be an absolutist type monarch.
Think about it as of late he's been shooting back, about people whom question his decisions and, saying to an extent that his decisions are ''infalliable.''
Lets start a discusssion regarding this....
thankx.

[sachmo71]

Bush wouldn't be a good tyrant; he relies too much on the opinions of others.

Prince consort? Definately.
Shadow president? Without a doubt.
But Absolute monarch? No way.

[Dutch]

Chemical Soldier,

Who's putting these ideas into your head?

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Chemical Soldier,

Who's putting these ideas into your head?

[Warhammer]

I just think that Bush is a bit spoiled and has labored to escape the shadow of his father. As a result, he hates it when he is questioned. I do much the same thing, except I'm not spoiled, so I can deal with it. However, much of what Bush does publicly, I would love to do.

[CamEdwards]

I don't see it as Bush thinking he's infallible. Read the text of his speeches. He says it's absolutely appropriate to have a discussion on the merits of the war. What he's objecting to is the revisionist history being spouted by Durbin, Dean, Pelosi, etc.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Bush wouldn't be a good tyrant; he relies too much on the opinions of others.

On the other hand, history is littered with monarchs who were ruled by their advisors.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

On the other hand, history is littered with monarchs who were ruled by their advisors.

Not going to aruge that, by my understanding of his question was that he was comparing Bush to a dictator\tyrant. I reached that conclusion from here:

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

Ok guys I've been thinking as of late with about all the new Bush speeches regarding his decisions and the latest hoopla in the congress and, white house reactions I think that in a different era Bush would be an absolutist type monarch.

My understanding of absolute monarchy is that the ruler doesn't rely on advisors or funtionaries to make decisions; he rules with an iron fist.

EDIT: Although I guess this doesn't preclude listening to advisors. My point is that I believe Bush's advisors make most of his decisions for him, rather than him weighing their opinons against his own views. That, IMO, would make him a poor absolute monarch.

[Raiders Army]

I'd rather rule with an iron stomach...then I could eat all the jalepenos and habeneros I want.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm wandering off into pure semantics here, but all an "absolute monarchy" means is that the monarch has absolute power. It doesn't mean the monarch can't be a simpering idiot (such as England's Henry VI, for instance).

What's being suggested here is a ruler who not only has absolute power, but wields it forcefully, with little or no input from others. Josef Stalin springs to mind. Perhaps the best one-word description for this type of ruler is simply "dictator".

No, in a different era I don't think Bush would have made a "good" dictator. The "best" dictators tend to have a very clear vision of how they want things to be, and are relentless in their efforts to bring this vision to pass. I'm putting the words "good" and "best" in quotes, by the way, because, let's face it, dictators are more often evil than good.

Bush, I think, would have done well (for himself) as simply a monarch. He's not unlike many medieval kings who would dwadle around and then one day have an idea ("Hey, let's invade France!") with which the state would be forced to comply. Then, months or years later, when the idea didn't seem so neat anymore and was more work than the monarch wanted, some noble (probably not someone in the inner circle) might have the temerity to say "Now what?" and the monarch would say "I dont know! Leave me alone! Off with his head!"

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I don't see it as Bush thinking he's infallible. Read the text of his speeches. He says it's absolutely appropriate to have a discussion on the merits of the war. What he's objecting to is the revisionist history being spouted by Durbin, Dean, Pelosi, etc.

Just so you know I think "POL" needs to be at the front of these threads.....


So:

Dickerson: After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?

Bush: "hmmmm - (pause) - wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (laughter). Uh - (pause) - John - (pause) - I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way - (pause) - uh - (pause) - You know, I just, uh - (pause) - I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but - (pause) - it hadn't yet. I, uh - (pause).....




Bush has not been the poster boy of accountability, my friend.

[Dutch]

The anti-Bush crowd needs to understand how the voting process works. You all lost. Get the fuck over it, already.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The anti-Bush crowd needs to understand how the voting process works. You all lost. Get the fuck over it, already.

democracy. thanks

[Dutch]

Crying fire in a crowded movie theater over and over again when their is no fire is more like it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Crying fire in a crowded movie theater over and over again when their is no fire is more like it.

Well, that's a little mild for those who've crossed the line into treason and/or sedition.

(FTR, I'm not talking about Flasch here)

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well, that's a little mild for those who've crossed the line into treason and/or sedition.

(FTR, I'm not talking about Flasch here)

I'm not either, Flasch is pretty fair compared to most of the anti-Bush crowd.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Crying fire in a crowded movie theater over and over again when their is no fire is more like it.

HOWEVER, when 75% of the people are burning in said theatre, and theyre screaming "Fire! Ow it hurts, my eyes, the smoke, its FIRE!" Their perception is that it is FIRE....

Now if the ushers and the owners are standing in the aisles saying, "No, thats not fire. ITs not a big deal, sit in your seats, weve got a plan to fix that. Dont worry about it" then their perception/salesmanship is completely different than that of their patrons.

If the patrons (or 75% thereof) are certain its fire in their perception than wouldnt the Owners and ushers be remiss for thinking that its not?

Does that make sense?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Does that make sense?

Well, I understood what you were trying to say.

I think it's pretty irrelevant ... but I understood the attempt

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well, that's a little mild for those who've crossed the line into treason and/or sedition.

(FTR, I'm not talking about Flasch here)

Out of curiousity- where's the treason and sedition?

SI

[sachmo71]

Pro or con, bush would be a pretty poor dictator.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

HOWEVER, when 75% of the people are burning in said theatre, and theyre screaming "Fire! Ow it hurts, my eyes, the smoke, its FIRE!" Their perception is that it is FIRE....

Now if the ushers and the owners are standing in the aisles saying, "No, thats not fire. ITs not a big deal, sit in your seats, weve got a plan to fix that. Dont worry about it" then their perception/salesmanship is completely different than that of their patrons.

If the patrons (or 75% thereof) are certain its fire in their perception than wouldnt the Owners and ushers be remiss for thinking that its not?

Does that make sense?

If the only information the patrons have to work with is some kid in the back yelling "Fire, Fire, Fire!" over and over again and nobody questions it and ignores the pleas from the owners and ushers that there is no fire, the reality is that the people will start to panic based on perception.

But if the patrons (once outside I guess) try to get the rest of the story and stop just listening to the kid in broadcast mode screaming "fire!" they might be able to change their vantage point and see the reality of the situation is much different then what they had perceived.