Dubya - with apologies to the non-americans

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Crzy4Bono

Refugee
Joined
Aug 3, 2000
Messages
1,319
Location
somewhere out there
Bill Hangley is a Philadelphia writer who writes for Philly Tonite, the Weekly Press, City Paper, and many others]

From: "Bill Hangley, Jr."

Mon, 9 Jul 2001 19:05:38 -0400

So when the President was here on July 4, I had the opportunity to shake his
hand. I wasn't sure if that was a good idea or not but I did it anyway, and said
to him, "Mr President, I hope you only serve four years. I'm very
disappointed in your work so far."

He kept smiling and shaking my hand but answered, "who cares what you
think?" His face stayed photo-op perfect but his eyes gave me a look that
said, if we'd been drinking in some frathouse in Texas, he'd've happily answered, "let's
take it outside." A nasty little gleam. But he was (fortunately) constrained by
presidential propriety.

But that was the end of it, until I turned away and started scribbling the
quote down in my notepad, so as to remember The Gift forever. When he saw me
do that he got excited and craned his neck over the rubberneckers to shout at me,
"who are you with? Who are you with?" People started looking so he made a
joke: "make sure you get it right." But he kept at it: "Who do you write
for?" I told him I wasn't "with" anybody and pointed to one of his staff
people, who knows me a little, and said, "ask him, he'll tell you." Then I split.

Half an hour later, my boss (who had helped organize the event we were at)
came up to me and said, "did you really tell the President that he was doing
a 'lousy fucking job'?" No way, I said, I was very polite, I just told him what I
thought. Fortunately, he believed me. He wasn't happy with me, but he
believed me.

But anyway, if you ever wondered if the Prez really was kind of a jerk, I'm
here to tell you, he is, and I got The Gift to prove it. I'm thinking of
making up t-shirts so we can share The Gift with everyone:


"Who cares what you think?" - President George W. Bush, July 4, 2001




------------------
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono
Visit my web page at www.u2page.com
 
Originally posted by Like O2:
Do you people REALLY believe everything you read?
if it concerns Dubya -- YES
biggrin.gif
biggrin.gif


------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it
 
if reported by crzy4frecklyarsedleprechaunlinecreaturethatwasapparentlyknownasthegreentornado...

then if cousre we are to believe it!
 
Originally posted by Salome:
if it concerns Dubya -- YES

Good, then you believe the info about Dubya in the following article...

J.C. Watts Responds to Address by NAACP Leader ~ Calls for Meeting with Julian Bond

WASHINGTON, Jul. 10? House Republican Conference Chairman J.C. Watts, Jr. (R-OK) today invited NAACP Chairman Julian Bond to meet to discuss working together in a bipartisan way on a number of issues affecting the African American community. Watts issued the invitation in a letter to Bond in response to his inflammatory address earlier this week to the 92nd annual meeting of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in New Orleans.

?In your recent address ? you said of President George W. Bush: ?We intend to applaud him when he is right and to take him to task when he is wrong.? By any objective standard, your comments fell far short of that goal,? Watts wrote. ?In fact, I found them misleading, disappointing and far below the standards befitting an institution as storied and influential as the NAACP.

?For starters, President Bush?s administration is among the most diverse in recent history. He has appointed outstanding African Americans and Hispanics to the highest positions of power in our nation. Further, George W. Bush was the first Republican in years to address the NAACP convention, just last year in Baltimore. How quickly some forget. Sadly, far from your pledge to ?applaud him when he is right? you have sought to distort the Bush Administration?s record and further divide this nation.

?In addition, your claim that President Bush?s faith-based initiative ?threatens to erase sixty years of civil rights protections? is absolutely without any basis in fact. ? I urge you to learn a little more about this initiative and talk to some of those African Americans working every day to make a difference in African American communities. ? They can explain the importance of the faith-based initiative in a way that you must not be hearing.

?The NAACP already has a memorable past and its future can be just as bright if its leadership can reach out to make a real difference in the lives of African Americans ? and not just score political points. For years, countless NAACP officers and members, including members of my family, worked in that fashion to help bring the NAACP where it is today. Our cause is greater than partisan politics. I invite you to meet with me to discuss the magnificent opportunities that lie before us to work in a bipartisan way to improve education and health care, strengthen Social Security and extend a helping hand to the least fortunate in our society. The legacy of the NAACP deserves no less.?


Wonder if any interferencer's are gonna "talk" to me after this?????



[This message has been edited by Like O2 (edited 08-01-2001).]
 
ha! Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this besides me? This Hangley guy calls Dubya a jerk for responding the way he "allegedly" did, but doesn't consider himself a jerk for saying what he did to start the whole damn thing off! Jiminy Cricket, you meet the president and w/out even saying hello, you say "I hope you only serve 4 years"? Now, THAT's what I call jerky! Come on guys, do you expect the president to be anything other than human? Who among us can say we wouldn't be a little peeved if a total stranger came up and said something jerky like that to ya? That writer is getting upset over nothing.
 
Like O2, if any interferencer refuses to talk to you due to your comments, it is because they do not know the meaning of the word "tolerance."

Bill Hangley is primarily an art & entertainment writer who sometimes engages in political satire. In fact, he lied when he told President Bush that he was "very disappointed in (his) work so far," because Mr. Hangley was opposed to Bush prior to the election and did not have any big hopes for him.

I never liked President Clinton, but if I ever had the opportunity to meet him, I would have extended a handshake and said, "It is an honor to meet you, President Clinton." Bill Hangley was trying to be rude and get a reaction out of President Bush. I think President Bush handled it quite well, if indeed it ever really happened.

~U2Alabama
 
Originally posted by Like O2:
Wonder if any interferencer's are gonna "talk" to me after this?????

Of course I'll "talk" to you - this is friendly, healthy debate.
biggrin.gif


{{{{{{HUGS LIKEO2}}}}}}

Please note that I offered no comment on this article, I just posted it. If you want my commentary, look at the other thread, which actually has some specific actions by this administration that I disagree with. You can clearly always find media reports to support your point of view, no matter what your political leaning are... that's why I always try to look at the facts.

Peace!

Oh, and froggie, green torando?? Wassup with that?


------------------
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono
Visit my web page at www.u2page.com
 
Originally posted by Like O2:
*Like O2 gives 80sU2isBest a big hug!

{{{(((((((80sU2isBest)))))))}}}
Thanks for the hugs! And a big old texas embrace right back at ya. You'll find that if you're defending Dubya, you can usually count on me for support.
 
Originally posted by Like O2:
Good, then you believe the info about Dubya in the following article...
of course, I will also believe that
smile.gif


------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it
 
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
ha! Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this besides me? This Hangley guy calls Dubya a jerk for responding the way he "allegedly" did, but doesn't consider himself a jerk for saying what he did to start the whole damn thing off!
why would it matter whether Hangley is ALSO a jerk?

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it
 
Originally posted by Salome:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
ha! Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this besides me? This Hangley guy calls Dubya a jerk for responding the way he "allegedly" did, but doesn't consider himself a jerk for saying what he did to start the whole damn thing off!
why would it matter whether Hangley is ALSO a jerk?
I never said Hangley was ALSO a jerk. I said he's THE jerk. He called Bush a jerk, but the truth is that Bush was simply reacting to the actions of a jerk. So, I called Hangley a hypocrite (for calling Bush a jerk when Hangley's the one being the jerk). I simply said that it's completely natural to respond in the way Bush "allegedly" when someone's being a jerk to you.
 
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
I simply said that it's completely natural to respond in the way Bush "allegedly" when someone's being a jerk to you.
it is a natural reaction
but when I'm at work I wouldn't act like that even though I'm only an auditor, not a president

granted, my job is a bit less stressfull
smile.gif


------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it
 
I'm gonn have to side with Bama, O2 and 80s on this one. Hangley was the jerk for saying something like that in the first place. What the hell did he expect? Bush to suddenly stop everything and call a press conference because one lousy writer doesn't like him?

It's akin to going up to Mike Tyson and saying "I think you're a wimp and a coward," and then crying about what a menace to society he is because he punched you.

Mr. Hangley was trying to get a rise out of the President. What kind of people usually do things just to get a rise out of people? Yes, that's right ladies and gents, jerks.
smile.gif
 
My opinions, take 'em or leave 'em:

1) A 'diverse' cabinet means nothing. I almost see it as an overcompensation for the fact that the GOP comes across as a bunch of gun-toting, white-haired, old men. Yet, however, I do applaud at least the facade of diversity; but I still can't get over the fact that Dubya, along with the rest of his 'party,' are raving homophobes, and, until they can get beyond that, they will always be bigots to me.

2) Faith-based initiatives are a recipe for disaster. The religious right doesn't like it, because they want the government to be able to discriminate against what they believe to be 'false religions'--i.e., anyone not Christian. Many are opposed seeing it as a government intrusion into religion--i.e., they will legislate what they can or cannot do. Others are opposed assuming that the government will bend such rules as non-discrimination laws, which, in effect, will allow public funds to be wasted on discriminatory organizations. Then, the rest of us are opposed, because we don't want religion to get an ounce of public funds for any reason whatsoever! Have we learned nothing from what caused the Reformation?

3) As much as I get a chuckle from this article, it really doesn't mean much. Actions do speak a hell of a lot louder than words, and this was, admittedly, a set-up to get a rise out of him (Dubya really needs to learn some better diplomacy. I can imagine that Clinton would have handled a similar situation with far better tact.). Dubya's actions, so far, just make me cringe. I hate the idea of a missile shield, I hate the fact that he encourages right-wing Christianity (a personal dislike of mine), and I hate the fact that he, in almost every case, has sided with stockholder and business-interests over the interests of the working class. It almost makes me want to stay here in London, rather than return to the U.S. Of course, 'who cares what think?'

Melon

------------------
?Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.? - Hui-neng (638-713)
 
crzy, 80s, bama, salome ~ you guys are the best.
tdo9.gif


I was worried that I'd get my right wings plucked. thanks for letting me give ya my opinion. Hope the "you people" comment didn't offend anyone, it wasn't meant to.

------------------
"See, the rock star gets his way. Thank you very much. This feels very Elvis. Thank you."

Bono - Houston, Texas 4-2-01
 
Originally posted by Like O2:
80's, did you know I'm from Texas because I've mentioned it or did ya guess it because of my deep texas drawwwlll?

Actually, neither. I gave ya a big Texas hug because I'm from Texas.
Here's another hug for ya - a big old bear hug from one right wing nut to another.
Vive Conservatism!
 
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
I gave ya a big Texas hug because I'm from Texas. Here's another hug for ya - a big old bear hug from one right wing nut to another.
Vive Conservatism!


Well, shoot fire, where ya from darlin? I'm kickin' up my boots in Houston!!

Actually, after my last post I thought "well that was darn silly, take one gander at my sig and you don't have to think too long 'bout what part of the sticks I hail from!"

Bear hugs are the best, thanks 80's!!



------------------
"See, the rock star gets his way. Thank you very much. This feels very Elvis. Thank you."

Bono - Houston, Texas 4-2-01
 
Originally posted by melon:
My opinions, take 'em or leave 'em:

1) A 'diverse' cabinet means nothing. I almost see it as an overcompensation for the fact that the GOP comes across as a bunch of gun-toting, white-haired, old men. Yet, however, I do applaud at least the facade of diversity; but I still can't get over the fact that Dubya, along with the rest of his 'party,' are raving homophobes, and, until they can get beyond that, they will always be bigots to me.

2) Faith-based initiatives are a recipe for disaster. The religious right doesn't like it, because they want the government to be able to discriminate against what they believe to be 'false religions'--i.e., anyone not Christian. Many are opposed seeing it as a government intrusion into religion--i.e., they will legislate what they can or cannot do. Others are opposed assuming that the government will bend such rules as non-discrimination laws, which, in effect, will allow public funds to be wasted on discriminatory organizations. Then, the rest of us are opposed, because we don't want religion to get an ounce of public funds for any reason whatsoever! Have we learned nothing from what caused the Reformation?

3) As much as I get a chuckle from this article, it really doesn't mean much. Actions do speak a hell of a lot louder than words, and this was, admittedly, a set-up to get a rise out of him (Dubya really needs to learn some better diplomacy. I can imagine that Clinton would have handled a similar situation with far better tact.). Dubya's actions, so far, just make me cringe. I hate the idea of a missile shield, I hate the fact that he encourages right-wing Christianity (a personal dislike of mine), and I hate the fact that he, in almost every case, has sided with stockholder and business-interests over the interests of the working class. It almost makes me want to stay here in London, rather than return to the U.S. Of course, 'who cares what think?'

Melon


Melon, good to see you back to form. I knew i could count on your vendetta against the religious right to blind you to the truth.

I'll set ya straight here.

1)Where the heck did you get the idea that Dubya is a raving homophobe? Is it because he believes it's morally wrong? Well, you may find that most people do. I think it's wrong. But I don't discriminate against gays. Neither does Dubya.

2)The religious right may not like the Faith-based initiatives, but if some of them don't, it has nothing to do with wanting to discriminate against other religions. It's because of what you list as the second reason-they don't want the government meddling and control that comes hand-in-hand with government funding.

3)As far as Clinton handling it a little better, you may be wrong. Let me tell you a little about a news item from a few years ago. The press had been called out to some construction site. I don't remember what was going on, but I do remember that when Billy Boy arrived, he proceeded to cuss out one of his own people for the press being there...he used the "G**Damn" term, in fact.
 
Originally posted by Like O2:
Well, shoot fire, where ya from darlin? I'm kickin' up my boots in Houston!!

Actually, after my last post I thought "well that was darn silly, take one gander at my sig and you don't have to think too long 'bout what part of the sticks I hail from!"

Bear hugs are the best, thanks 80's!!
I hail from Arlington, future home of the Cowboys (I hope not!)
 
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:

Melon, good to see you back to form. I knew i could count on your vendetta against the religious right to blind you to the truth.

I'll set ya straight here.

1)Where the heck did you get the idea that Dubya is a raving homophobe? Is it because he believes it's morally wrong? Well, you may find that most people do. I think it's wrong. But I don't discriminate against gays. Neither does Dubya.

2)The religious right may not like the Faith-based initiatives, but if some of them don't, it has nothing to do with wanting to discriminate against other religions. It's because of what you list as the second reason-they don't want the government meddling and control that comes hand-in-hand with government funding.

3)As far as Clinton handling it a little better, you may be wrong. Let me tell you a little about a news item from a few years ago. The press had been called out to some construction site. I don't remember what was going on, but I do remember that when Billy Boy arrived, he proceeded to cuss out one of his own people for the press being there...he used the "G**Damn" term, in fact.


Well, as I have in the past, I'll have to side with melon on many of the mistakes made by one George W. Bush.

1)Now, Bush has never come out and said that he is some kind of homophobe. But during his tenure as governor of Texas, the man never once publicly uttered the word "AIDS". He never acknowledged an epidemic that is ravaging the homosexual population. Certainly AIDS is not contained within the homosexual community, but to practically deny the existence of such a disease invokes the memories of another president who all but ignored the problem--Ronald Reagan. As Bush ignored the problem in Texas, it only continued to get worse, especially amongst the homosexual population.

In terms of other homesexual-related topics, Bush has once again sided with the opposition. He vehemently opposes both same-sex marriage and gay and lesbian child adoption. He opposed a Texas bill that would have protected gays from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Maybe he doesn't outright hate gays, but he sure doesn't seem to support them in any way.

2)I find it interesting that the "faith-based" initiative seems to be opposed by conservatives such as Rev. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. They seem to be a bit wary of a bill that recognizes Hare Krishna Consciousness and Scientology as "faiths", which would tread on their beliefs. Alternatively, Bush could attempt to simply pass a bill that would only recognize Christian-run charities as "faith-based", and it just might pass. In my experience, most of the American public seems to have been conditioned to think of Christianity as the "real" religion, while other religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism are "weird" and "have dumb rules". This is something I feel every time someone asks why I "eat grass" or "worship cows". Much of the ignorance present in America is thought to be harmless--how wrong the American people are. This isn't the fault of George Bush, but simply a side point I'm making. I don't believe the government should be in the business of telling people which faiths are worthy of federal funds, and which are not.

3)The point isn't some vulgar language used here. If so, I could point out the fact that Bush himself called a reporter a "major league asshole" during the campaign. I didn't hear a clamoring from the parents and churches to have Bush immediately quit the campaign--and why would they? That type of language has become rather commonplace. The point of the article--relatively unimportant as it may have been--is that Bush gave a fairly childish response to a valid statement. Perhaps the "I hope you only serve four years" part was excessive, but it seems that Bush's response would be taken aback even if my six-year-old cousin had said it. The President of the United States should be able to deal better, even with people such as Mr. Hangley, who seemed to just be provoking Bush. Either way, there were many, many ways that Bush could have replied other than "Who cares what you think". I'm not surprised, but it doesn't really change my opinion on Bush. He's never been much of a diplomat, and he continues to not be one.


------------------
Change is the only constant
 
Back
Top Bottom