[lit-ideas] Re: Art and the Wall
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 09:33:32 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 9/1/2005 12:14:24 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Art and the Wall
In a message dated 8/31/2005 10:43:38 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
A.A. Are you brain dead too Marlena?
<g>
Hi, Andy,
Probably only when I'm reading your words!
I was just puzzled that you seemed to think that Eric was excusing Bush, that's
all, when Eric was talking more about strategy and focusing on what the real
issue was...
A.A. Where in his words do you get that? I should have said Eric wants
someone *other than Bush* to take the blame for what happened in the White
House. Bush, Eric apparently feels, is too stupid and childlike to bear any
blame. Bush is pushed around by shadowy figures ... unresponsible,
irresponsible ... This begs the question, what the fuck is Bush doing in the
White House other than taking up space?
I'm glad to know you are not like the people who said that they supported
Clinton's policies but disliked the man and some of his personal life choices
so much that they voted for someone else ...
A.A. Clinton got a blow job outside of marriage. Wow. Do people want a
president or a religious leader? Do they want policy or moral instruction?
Clinton was a good president. He did what a president has to do, which is make
the country strong. People are such idiots that they would rather have someone
"moral" (as exemplied by frat party boy Bush) than someone competent. What
were we saying about people being brainless sheep?
I couldn't really tell if you just felt sorry for Bush and thought Eric was
crazy to not condemn him but to condemn or want to change Bush's policies...for
perhaps for some people, they can separate the two aspects of his job and
prioritize them so that policy becomes what is examined. (the two aspects, I
think, would be policies and leadership)
A.A. Bush *is* his policies. Bush was gunning for SS for 20 years. He handed
out tax breaks to the ultra wealthy. Eric wants to blame his advisers, but he
doesn't explain how it is that Bush Sr. had the very same advisers and Sr.
*advocated* a tax increase. Read my lips, remember? Sr. had the sense to know
that everything runs on money. W *using the very same advisers* is clueless
about money. He opened up the treasury and gave all the money away to his
billionaire friends; encouraged pharma to loot Medicare, and on and on. And
now he's the innocent simpleton who can't be blamed because he's well, an
innocent simpleton. Clinton was virtually impeached while Bush gets away with
destroying the country. Obvioulsy being stupid is a virtue in this country.
Be stupid and they'll forgive you anything.
(Though wouldn't it be a really nice dream to actually have someone who matched
on all aspects...)
(A.A. Happy to have competent leadership and without need of a daddy in the
White House to set a good example for me ...)
Andy Amago
Thanks for explaining to this tired mind,
Marlena in Missouri
and waiting/hoping for that roll call
Other related posts:
