Do you trust the President.

[Bufftp]

I'm curious do you trust the President, and why or why not.

[BillC]

:angry: No- !

Anybody who gets nabbed at Wegmans for stealing a keg of beer has to go!



We are talking about Thurm, right? :baghead:

[Typ0]

If you are saying put him in a vacuum and let him make all the choices do I trust he will make all the right choices then no I do not. No one can do that and he is no different. Scrutiny is a very important function.

[Ð]

Yup those days are long gone. The last "vacum" president was Hoover.
I think Ronald Reagan sold Electroluxes at one time, though. ;)

[Novacane]

Absolutely. He is a man of integrity unlike his predecessor!

[Bufftp]

Originally posted by Typ0
If you are saying put him in a vacuum and let him make all the choices do I trust he will make all the right choices then no I do not. No one can do that and he is no different. Scrutiny is a very important function.
I didn't ask if you thought he was perfect;)

[Typ0]

what you asked is if I trust him. I am telling you I don't understand the question bufftp. What exactly to you mean by "trust" and what are you trying to drive at with this question?

[Bufftp]

General trust people give each other. Knowing that humans are not perfect and fallable, we still choose to trust each other, and also not to trust. This is also not to be confused with agreement with policys, i.e. I disagree with both Shumer, and Clinton as NYS senators politically, but I trust Shumer not Clinton. I think Shumer is honest about what and why he belives and acts as he does, Clinton I don't.

[Typ0]

Ok. So you are saying your definition of trust means we trust them to be telling us what they believe. Then yes I trust Bush. I do think he really believes what he says. I think he does what he does because of what he believes in. I think he is a stand up person. That clearly separates him from any dirtly low down scumbag like a Clinton.

And, yes I agree, we do have to trust other people but there is another level of trust that you kind of washed over. In practice, you will find when more is at stake simply trusting someone on the levels you are saying is not good enough to identify them as trustworthy. So trust at that level become somewhat irrelevant at a point. As the stakes increase and the group size increases, trust becomes something that is supported only by power or cold hearted facts and persuasion. So trusting the president to me means I can go to sleep at night and wake up thinking if there was a major decision to be made he would have made the right decision. On that level I am not so sure I trust Bush at this point. He might believe he doesn't have any alterior motives...but he also may be too far inside a tunnel to see he's been influenced in certain ways. So with your broad defnition of trust I would trust the president. But considering the power he has and his personal experience, I do not think it is appropriate to classify him under that broad definition.

[Bufftp]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BillC
[B]:angry: No- !

Anybody who gets nabbed at Wegmans for stealing a keg of beer has to go!
No were not talking about Thurm Billy, though that is just a rumor being used to smear our beloved ostrich leader, it's part of the vast wsyonian wing conspiracy. They can’t even give an acceptable meaning of stealing. Any good cigars lately.

[Bufftp]

Typo,
I think that you need to have a level of the trust I am talking about, before you can work on the level you are talking about. And for that matter that type of trust goes more in line with agreement with philosophy. By the way I have never argued for blind trust of any level with the president.

[Typ0]

I'm not so sure bufftp only because I do not know Mr. Bush at all. I do not work with him every day. I do not hang out with him on the weekend. I do not have any dealings with him whatsoever nor do I have any significant insight into who he truly is. Let's not forget he is a figure first and a person second. The presidency is much larger than the person who holds the office. Even if you are of the philosopy you should trust your neighbor, the president is not your neighbor so I would argue they do not fall into that category of trust.

So if you are saying we need to trust everyone by default so Bush must be trustworthy simply because he has never done anything to me personally to break that trust I would have to disagree with you. In fact, I think it is a great injustice when people impose trust on someone just because of how they look or appear to be. Look at the mockery that lead too with Clinton. He is a complete loser who never should have been President. But because he has "charisma" he's trustworthy enough to hold the office. So I am not going to say i trust the president outright especially when it is a completely open proposition not applied to anything specific about trust.

Frankly, it's been my experience in our society trusting people often leads to your getting the short end of the stick anyway.

[honey]

I do trust President Bush. I don't think he's the type of person to tell you something and know it's exactly the opposite of what he's saying. But, what do I know? I'm probably naive. :)

[DIHARD2]

Do I trust's this politician? I trust him to tell me what he thinks I want to hear, but do I trust him to make the right decision for me, then no.

I didn't trust Clinton, but I respected him, I did not hire him for his sexual escapades I hired him to make my government run better and it did with him in their.

Most of the people that dislike Clinton, can only bring up one incident and make that there reason for hatred, which makes no sense. The fact that in his eight years the national debt clocks stopped and we had the ability to start paying back what we owed was the right thing for me. But, now it started up again, which is again affecting me and the Next Generation's. Somebody is going to have to pay this money back at some point, and that makes me question his integrity and his agenda.

I've seen a lot of people out of work sense 2000 and 9/11 Isn't what cost them their job, they were out of work before that date. The stock market has fallen and people who have depended on their investments for retirement are now looking for work. I cannot understand where everyone sees anything good from this administration, to me he hasn't shown anything other than the ability to beat a war drum.

When I start seeing people going back to work then I will agree with his agenda, but until then he isn't any better than any other politicians we've had sense Kennedy. If I could vote I would vote no at this point I do not trust him.

GO!!!...BUFFALO!!!...

[Typ0]

DIEHARD what one incident about Clinton are you referring too? I could care less about his sex life. I do care that he lied to a judge while under oath though. The man is a member of a bar association he has no business doing that. People who defend him are really misguided as far as I am concerned. He is supposed to be our President...and he makes a mockery of our ideologies. If that is not a joke of a human being I have never seen one. They should have charged him with treason and hung him by the nuts from the washington monument. The man is a complete disgrace and people let him get away with it. Now he is out there spouting off a bunch of negativity against Bush. He is an ex-president. It's not his place to attack the current officeholder they should be working together. If he has a problem let him take it up with Bush not the national enquirer.

Clinton's adminstration is also the one that created the tech bubble that hurt the economy. It's Clintons work fluffing up company values way above what they were really worth. Now the GOP has to come in and mop up the waste and you are pointing the finger at them. The Dems only know how to create a false sense of reality they have no long term solution on anything. It may look like were worse off now but at least we know what we are dealing with in the economy. Clinton just orchestrated an inevitable disaster I can't believe you are going to place that burdeon entirely on the GOP. Also, 911 has a lot to do with our economy not rebounding at this point. Clinton was the idiot that defeated efforts that may have thwarted such an occurence. Now we have to pay the price in our blood and through our pocketbooks. And before you bring up unemployment I will remind you it was the DEMS who screwed over the unemployed twice in the past two years with their all our way or nothing policy on support for the unemployed.

Finally, the national debt problem is perhaps the biggest fallicy the dems have created in their entire history. They keep whining and bitching about it just because it's a chance to take a shot at the GOP. It means very little when you are the richest nation in the world. Plus we can wheel and deal our way out of paying a lot of that money back. If you look at the numbers, the way the deficit manifests itself in our economy and what it costs us they are not nearly as unfavorable as the DEMS would have us believe. It's another straw for them to grasp at.

[honey]

WOW! You go, Typ0! :D I agree wholeheartedly.

[Typ0]

I know you are very smart Honey you don't have to keep reminding me.

[Earthquake Enyart]

Do I trust him? Sure I trust him. The problem is that he's not the sharpest knive in the drawer.

[mybills]

Yes, I trust Bush and all of the key men/women around him.

[Ebenezer]

I don't trust politicians....period.

[German]

Nope!!!

[Ebenezer]

Originally posted by mybills
Yes, I trust Bush and all of the key men/women around him.


there is only one bush I trust...and it is not GW.