How extreme could Bush get without losing his supporters?

[Augustus]

Augustus, that list is a cheap evasion and you know it. Of course he would lose his supporters if he went 180 degrees around in the opposite direction, but that's NOT what I'm asking. I'm asking how much more extreme he could get in his current direction before his supporters finally decided he'd gone too far. Or (as is more likely) do they not understand the concept of balance, and assume that if a little of something is good, a lot is always even better?

As for the question of whether I think he's an extremist, of course he is; he has shown no willingness to compromise on any issue whatsoever, and in fact he considers his refusal to brook compromise to be a sign of "leadership". The fact that his supporters disagree doesn't prove anything, and I ask how much MORE extreme he could get before his supporters finally abandon ship, if that is even possible.

So I ask again: what would it take? No evasions this time, please.

forgot to add ...

11) Steal lollypops from babies
12) Make a gaint penitentary out of Manhattan Island (Wait... I like that one )
12) Go into peoples houses at night and wreck up the place!!!!

Ok to answer your question directly -

I assmue we are speaking about things that are likely to occur and not basless fears, if he were elected for another term.

If Bush began issuing executive orders that held the 10th amendment exclusivly over the 14th that did not allow for Congress/the Courts/the Citizens to get involved in the descision making process, then that would be too far. (e.g. Letting States rights run roughshod over the due process, equal protection and immunities of citizenship like a ban on gay marriage by executive fiat. I should note that Bush has not done this, and all the steps that have been taken on Gay marriage have been through constitutional channels)

Stacking the supreme court in an in order to rule through judial fiat would be another step too far. Again something GWB is not guilty of considering he has not appointed anyone to the USSC.

Again assuming he was elected once more, if he did not spend every ounce of political capital he can muster untangling the knot of red tape that prevents true reform of the intelligence services I would loose my faith in him. (e.g. this means not leaving the Penagon in control of the CIA, although putting the CIA under Congressional control is just as bad or worse.)

Not having some heads roll for the Intell problems with Iraq. True they are systemic and go back over 12 years, but someone needs to pay for the mistake in a public fashion by doing a mea-maxima-culpa and falling on his sword.

I hope that answers your question sufficently, if not let me know and I'll be happy to ponder it more.

If you don't mind me asking have you given any consideration to my question? (Why don't Bush supporters consider him an extremist?) I'm not trying to pin you down Mike, I'm interested in your point of view for several reasons 1) you are of a different political stripe than me 2) honest about you belifes and 3) intelligent enough to express them with out denigation.

[Sam Or I]

I think he meant secular, not non-secular.

Thanx, typo.

[Durandal]

A widow-and-orphan fund for the families of suicide bombers isn't equivalent to supporting terrorism.

Ummm... yes it is. Anytime you're paying someone off for intentionally taking a certain course of action you are encouraging people to do that.

Except that Hussein wasn't paying them, was he? He paid off their families and provided a sort of suicide bomber life insurance policy. Tell me, if a life insurance firm provided coverage for suicide, does that mean that they encourage their customers to commit suicide?

At best, Hussein was sympathetic to their cause, but not to the point of actually supporting them. Terrorist organizations never benefited from his actions, unless you'd like to argue that there were guys who were wrestling with the whether or not they wanted to become suicide bombers and finally decided to do so because they knew their families would be taken care of. Not plausible given the culture over there and the fanatical religious devotion of someone who'd be willing to even consider running into a building with explosives strapped to his chest.

Hussein never gave weapons, gear, funds or space for training camps to any terrorist organizations. Those things would constitute support because a terrorist organization would benefit from them. Terrorist organizations do not benefit because Saddam Hussein gave some money to the families of suicide bombers.

[Darth Servo]

My guess would be slaughtering all the first borns of the Arab world.

[Durandal]

My guess would be slaughtering all the first borns of the Arab world.

Are you serious? His base would love that, and I'm not even joking.

[Sam Or I]

A nitpick of my own.......

Secondly, the invasion of Iraq can be justified for reasons other then the ones he used- so his "flip-flooping" on the reasons isn't a critical point for them. For example, many people think that Saddam supported terrorism, and this is just one example.

Saddam DID support terrorism, this is a proven FACT. He mostly supported non-secular terrorism, not Al-Qeada (even though there are indirect links).

A widow-and-orphan fund for the families of suicide bombers isn't equivalent to supporting terrorism. And al Qaeda is non-secular terrorist group.

He did a little more than that.

Kurdistan Workers' Party? (Yes he supported the Kurds, as long as they were terrorising Turkey) Mujahedin-e Khalq? Abu Nidal Organization ? And of Course Hamas, and ALF. I do not even want to get into the KLA, that would be a whole different thread.

http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/kurds.htm
http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=24
http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/abu.htm
http://db.mipt.org/Group.jsp?groupID=151

[Augustus]

My guess would be slaughtering all the first borns of the Arab world.

Are you serious? His base would love that, and I'm not even joking.

ROMA VICTOR!

[Master of Ossus]

Except that Hussein wasn't paying them, was he? He paid off their families and provided a sort of suicide bomber life insurance policy.

Don't play such games with me. If someone offered my family a thousand dollars if I would walk down the street at the right time, that's paying me to walk down the street.

Tell me, if a life insurance firm provided coverage for suicide, does that mean that they encourage their customers to commit suicide?

Yes it would. That's why life insurance firms don't cover such things--they only cover accidents, and if they find out you did something on purpose then they prosecute you as a felon.

At best, Hussein was sympathetic to their cause, but not to the point of actually supporting them.

Bullshit. By offering money to the families of suicide bombers, he relieved the would-be-bombers of their obligation to care for their families and allowed them to engage in terrorism.

Terrorist organizations never benefited from his actions, unless you'd like to argue that there were guys who were wrestling with the whether or not they wanted to become suicide bombers and finally decided to do so because they knew their families would be taken care of.

Bullshit. His pay-offs dramatically increased the supply of people willing to become suicide bombers.

Not plausible given the culture over there and the fanatical religious devotion of someone who'd be willing to even consider running into a building with explosives strapped to his chest.

It is plausible, and it's what happened. People who were considering suicide for other reasons decided to go up as martyrs, instead. More people who would otherwise have had to support their families were relieved of that responsibility, knowing that Hussein would provide for them after their suicides.

Hussein never gave weapons, gear, funds or space for training camps to any terrorist organizations.

No, what he gave them was more important: people willing to carry out their attacks.

Those things would constitute support because a terrorist organization would benefit from them. Terrorist organizations do not benefit because Saddam Hussein gave some money to the families of suicide bombers.

Yes they did. They noticed an increase in the numbers of people willing to kill themselves and take some Israelis with them.

[Tom_Aurum]

Me (just kind of parroting what I said on the "poll".) BUSH HAS HIS FINGER ALMOST AS NEAR AS THAT RED BUTTON AS GOLDWATER WANTED TO HAVE HIS!!!!!

If that doesn't make you people realise things, then I don't know what will!!! Nobody should be let near that button!

[Vympel]

Yes they did. They noticed an increase in the numbers of people willing to kill themselves and take some Israelis with them.

They did? Can you demonstrate an increase?

And furthermore, as is my wont to response whenever someone brings up Israel/Palestinian war- why the fuck should America care about Israel, again? If Israel's feeling so fucking threatened by these widow-and-orphan funds (that also have been done in Saudi Arabia via telethon, I might add), let them fucking invade Iraq over it.

[Augustus]

Nobody should be let near that button!

Then you should'nt mind Kerry not getting his fingers near it either

[Master of Ossus]

Yes they did. They noticed an increase in the numbers of people willing to kill themselves and take some Israelis with them.

They did? Can you demonstrate an increase?

Sorry, that should say "They should have noticed...."

[Drooling Iguana]

He could start marching gays, lesbians and non-Christians into gas chambers, but I'm not sure that a significant number of his supporters wouldn't stick by him even then.

[Durandal]

Don't play such games with me. If someone offered my family a thousand dollars if I would walk down the street at the right time, that's paying me to walk down the street.

And if someone offers to compensate your family in the event of suicide, he's not paying you to commit suicide; he's compensating your family for loss. Why can you not see this distinction?

Yes it would. That's why life insurance firms don't cover such things--they only cover accidents, and if they find out you did something on purpose then they prosecute you as a felon.

That's absurd and you know it. Do auto insurance policies with fault protection encourage the policy holder to run around crashing into people?

Bullshit. By offering money to the families of suicide bombers, he relieved the would-be-bombers of their obligation to care for their families and allowed them to engage in terrorism.

And given that these suicide bombers are religious extremists with total, blind devotion anyway, please explain why they would stake their decision on whether they could get a life insurance policy to cover their families.

Bullshit. His pay-offs dramatically increased the supply of people willing to become suicide bombers.

And naturally, you have statistics to back this up. Wait, I don't think you do, since statistics show that only 13% of Palestinian suicide bombers are impoverished and hence most have no real need for the reward money offered.

Furthermore, the number of suicide bombings in Israel increased after Baghdad fell. Your theory that the pay-off was a major incentive predicts that the rate should have plummeted. This is not the case, so your assertion that Hussein was giving terrorists bodies to throw into the meat grinder doesn't pan out.

[Durandal]

Yes they did. They noticed an increase in the numbers of people willing to kill themselves and take some Israelis with them.

They did? Can you demonstrate an increase?

Sorry, that should say "They should have noticed...."

Begging the question. The data do not support this assertion.

[Master of Ossus]

Don't play such games with me. If someone offered my family a thousand dollars if I would walk down the street at the right time, that's paying me to walk down the street.

And if someone offers to compensate your family in the event of suicide, he's not paying you to commit suicide; he's compensating your family for loss. Why can you not see this distinction?

Because there is no distinction. Paying my family for something I do is almost exactly the same as paying me to do it.

That's absurd and you know it. Do auto insurance policies with fault protection encourage the policy holder to run around crashing into people?

Yes they do. No one in their right mind crashes their vehicles even with fault protection, since there still are costs associated with that, but people do take MANY more risks when they have fault protection than if they don't. If you've ever seen what people do to rental cars, you'll understand.

And given that these suicide bombers are religious extremists with total, blind devotion anyway, please explain why they would stake their decision on whether they could get a life insurance policy to cover their families.

Many of their families actually depend on them for support, and since they are obligated to care for their families they might be less willing to launch themselves in suicide attacks without being promised their families were taken care of.

And naturally, you have statistics to back this up. Wait, I don't think you do, since statistics show that only 13% of Palestinian suicide bombers are impoverished and hence most have no real need for the reward money offered.

So non-impoverished suicide bombers don't feel better about their actions knowing that their families will be taken care of when they're meeting their virgins.

Furthermore, the number of suicide bombings in Israel increased after Baghdad fell. Your theory that the pay-off was a major incentive predicts that the rate should have plummeted. This is not the case, so your assertion that Hussein was giving terrorists bodies to throw into the meat grinder doesn't pan out.

Bullshit. There are many causes for suicide bombings. Hussein's financial incentives were one of them, but not the only one.

[Durandal]

Because there is no distinction. Paying my family for something I do is almost exactly the same as paying me to do it.

So fault coverage is paying people to get in accidents? All right then.

Yes they do. No one in their right mind crashes their vehicles even with fault protection, since there still are costs associated with that, but people do take MANY more risks when they have fault protection than if they don't. If you've ever seen what people do to rental cars, you'll understand.

So ... insurance companies must want their customers to run around crashing cars?

Many of their families actually depend on them for support, and since they are obligated to care for their families they might be less willing to launch themselves in suicide attacks without being promised their families were taken care of.

Good job of completely ignoring evidence which doesn't support your position.

So non-impoverished suicide bombers don't feel better about their actions knowing that their families will be taken care of when they're meeting their virgins.

Apparently that doesn't matter to them, no. Aside from that, the suicide bombers aren't necessarily the provider of the household. In fact, most of them are in the 18-29 year-old range, and an overwhelming majority are single.

Bullshit. There are many causes for suicide bombings. Hussein's financial incentives were one of them, but not the only one.

And by the looks of it, an insignificant one. Because guess what? Now that Hussein's little charity is gone, it hasn't changed shit. What part of this don't you get? The overwhelming motivation for suicide bombers is religious and cultural. There is literally a culture of death over there. 60% of Palestinians approve of suicide bombing tactics, and many communities glorify suicide bombers. You honestly think that these guys would give a shit if their families weren't taken care of after they martyred themselves?

[Master of Ossus]

So fault coverage is paying people to get in accidents? All right then.

Yes. That's exactly what it does.

So ... insurance companies must want their customers to run around crashing cars?

Wrong. There's a huge difference between paying someone for getting into an accident and paying someone to intentionally wreck a vehicle. Even with fault insurance, if the insurance company finds out you got into an accident intentionally then they prosecute you as a felon. What part of this do you not understand?

Good job of completely ignoring evidence which doesn't support your position.

Like what? Do you seriously think that non-impoverished people must not be needed by their families to support them?

Apparently that doesn't matter to them, no. Aside from that, the suicide bombers aren't necessarily the provider of the household. In fact, most of them are in the 18-29 year-old range, and an overwhelming majority are single.

That's the same demographic that most families rely on for support. While suicide bombers aren't necessarily the primary provider for a household, you're an idiot if you think that means that no one relies on them for financial support.

And by the looks of it, an insignificant one. Because guess what? Now that Hussein's little charity is gone, it hasn't changed shit. What part of this don't you get? The overwhelming motivation for suicide bombers is religious and cultural. There is literally a culture of death over there.

I agree completely. Hussein's "suicide bomber insurance" was only one of many reasons for suicide bombings.

60% of Palestinians approve of suicide bombing tactics, and many communities glorify suicide bombers. You honestly think that these guys would give a shit if their families weren't taken care of after they martyred themselves?

Yes I do.

[Durandal]

Yes. That's exactly what it does.

No, it covers you should you get in an accident.

Wrong. There's a huge difference between paying someone for getting into an accident and paying someone to intentionally wreck a vehicle. Even with fault insurance, if the insurance company finds out you got into an accident intentionally then they prosecute you as a felon. What part of this do you not understand?

So which is it? According to you, any company which provides compensation for getting in a car collision is paying you to go around getting in collisions, therefore they are supporting collisions. But how can they support collisions if they sue people they find out got into them intentionally?

I agree completely. Hussein's "suicide bomber insurance" was only one of many reasons for suicide bombings.

Wrong. It was not a reason; it was a perk. A reason is something like, "Because I want my country to be free."

60% of Palestinians approve of suicide bombing tactics, and many communities glorify suicide bombers. You honestly think that these guys would give a shit if their families weren't taken care of after they martyred themselves?

Yes I do.

Then you are wrong. Suicide bombers are still running around doing their thing, even without Hussein's fund. You're still trying to wiggle around this basic fact. You haven't presented a shred of statistical evidence to support your position, and you have completely ignored damning evidence inconsistent with the predictions of your theory.

[aerius]

If I were to take a guess, Bush could get away with pretty much anything short of repealing both the 1st & 2nd ammendments. Touch their guns or god-given right to free speach and the shit will fly.

[Bugsby]

Bush can get away with anything, because once the spin machine comes into play, followed by the supporters twisting Bush's actions to fit their own view of what the president would and should do, anything can be justified.

And Mike, you failed your own pop quiz there. Creating deficits has NO EFFECT on GDP. At least not in the short run. This is right out of my macro notes. There is a finite amount of production in the US for any given quarter. Whether the government is spending that money or the people are, the money is still being spent. It's just distributed differently. What is bad about all this deficit spending is that in deficit spending, the government has to borrow money out of the lonable funds market. These funds would ususally be used by businesses for capital investment, which leads to economic growth. So Bush is hurting production a few years from now, while at the same time creating a huge debt that will need to get paid off with interest in a while, and that will hurt the economy when that debt finally has to start getting paid off, as taxes will increase LATER to pay for what should have been paid for now. The increase in GDP happened because is tax cuts were fortunate enough to take place in the beginning of a recession, and helped balance a the failing economy when the business cycle hit a downswing. So we got a helpful little spike there. But the allocation of the tax cut (heavily favoring the rich) and the continued insistance on deficit spending now that the economy is on an upswing are harmful policies.

Just figured I'd put my college education to some use.

[Master of Ossus]

Yes. That's exactly what it does.

No, it covers you should you get in an accident.

Again, making a distinction without a difference.

So which is it? According to you, any company which provides compensation for getting in a car collision is paying you to go around getting in collisions, therefore they are supporting collisions.

Yes, they are. They are making people more willing to get into accidents than if the insurance did not exist. The effect, however, is very small.

But how can they support collisions if they sue people they find out got into them intentionally?

If they intentionally get into accidents, then they go to jail on felony charges (they're usually not sued, since at that stage usually the insurance company has not paid). However, they are still encouraging accidents by encouraging more drivers to get on the roads and by paying them when they do get into accidents.

Wrong. It was not a reason; it was a perk. A reason is something like, "Because I want my country to be free."

And a massive pay-out isn't a reason. I guess people buy lottery tickets since they like to see their lucky numbers come up on the TV.

Then you are wrong. Suicide bombers are still running around doing their thing, even without Hussein's fund. You're still trying to wiggle around this basic fact. You haven't presented a shred of statistical evidence to support your position, and you have completely ignored damning evidence inconsistent with the predictions of your theory.

Do you seriously think that every single suicide bomber who has ever attacked Israel would've been completely willing to do that knowing that his family would have been in economic disaster-land if he went through with his plan? If so, you're an idiot. Palestinians may hate Israel, but they also love their families and care too much about them to throw them to the wolves. SOME Palestinians are willing to kill themselves for ideological reasons, but it makes that decision EASIER for them if they know their family will be paid off for their deeds afterwards.

Your massive strawman notwithstanding, Hussein DID provide financial incentives to suicide bombers. While that wasn't the ONLY reason for their actions, it was something that made it EASIER for them to go through with their actions, ergo it was implicit support for them.

[Durandal]

Yes, they are. They are making people more willing to get into accidents than if the insurance did not exist. The effect, however, is very small.

As was the effect of Hussein's fund for families.

If they intentionally get into accidents, then they go to jail on felony charges (they're usually not sued, since at that stage usually the insurance company has not paid). However, they are still encouraging accidents by encouraging more drivers to get on the roads and by paying them when they do get into accidents.

Do you really think that people like getting into accidents? Most people have car insurance because it's required by law and because they are more afraid of other drivers. Remember, no one on the road knows how to drive except you, after all.

And a massive pay-out isn't a reason. I guess people buy lottery tickets since they like to see their lucky numbers come up on the TV.

Don't be obtuse. Fighting for freedom from foreign oppressors is not equivalent to statistical curiosity, nor is having your family compensated due to your death equivalent to winning the lottery.

Do you seriously think that every single suicide bomber who has ever attacked Israel would've been completely willing to do that knowing that his family would have been in economic disaster-land if he went through with his plan? If so, you're an idiot. Palestinians may hate Israel, but they also love their families and care too much about them to throw them to the wolves. SOME Palestinians are willing to kill themselves for ideological reasons, but it makes that decision EASIER for them if they know their family will be paid off for their deeds afterwards.

And of course, you have statistical data to back up these conclusions. Oh wait, you don't, and you continue to ignore evidence to the contrary. You have not demonstrated the following predictions of your theory:

1. That the average rate of suicide bombings would increase after Hussein began providing this funding service.
2. That the average rate of suicide bombings would drop off once this source of funding was eliminated.

You have simply stated the former as a fact. As to the latter, you are correct that the fall of Baghdad would change other factors aside from cutting off financial support for suicide bombers' families by stoking the rage of Muslims at American imperialism. However, that only proves my point. The Palestinian suicide bombers didn't need Hussein's support to go and blow shit up, as demonstrated by the spike in bombings after Baghdad fell. You're making it sound like Hussein's support was a deal breaker. It wasn't.

Furthermore, there has been no reported drop in the average rate of bombings even more than a year after Baghdad fell, which your theory would predict. After the initial rage caused by Baghdad's fall subsided, prospective Palestinian suicide bombers would suddenly realize they couldn't get Hussein's money anymore and not become suicide bombers. This did not happen. Yet again, your theory's predictions do not pan out, hence it does not agree with reality.

As to your remarks about Palestinians loving their families, of course they do. But 60% of the country support suicide bombing tactics, and many families support members who have decided to become suicide bombers because they ardently believe in the cause. Is it so difficult for you to believe that these people simply hate the Israelis so much that they're willing to die to help free their people, with or without monetary compensation? You're looking at this from an American mindset. These people are religious extremists whose devotion is the primary driving force in every aspect of their lives. They don't need a monetary incentive to become suicide bombers.

Your massive strawman notwithstanding, Hussein DID provide financial incentives to suicide bombers. While that wasn't the ONLY reason for their actions, it was something that made it EASIER for them to go through with their actions, ergo it was implicit support for them.

And you're making it sound as if this implicit financial support is equivalent to what the Taliban was providing. It wasn't. It's nothing even close. There is no data to show that Hussein's funding resulted in an increase of suicide bombings because that funding was a minor issue. It was a perk of the job. You are simply asserting that Hussein's charity must have spiked suicide bombings because you think it must have.

[Shinova]

What I've noticed in Bush supporters is that they're more often than not ignorant of the factual things, like the budget, employment, the war, etc, but they throw their support behind Bush cause of his "character."

They say they like how he was strong and decisive, and that is what convinces them to throw their support behind him.


Of course, an abusive boyfriend is also "strong" and "decisive," so I don't know how deep these people have their heads dug into the ground.... Deep enough to hit oil, probably.

[Frank Hipper]

As to mike's question, Bush could go full-on Stalin/Hitler and still have supporters.

No fucking Osama bin Laden, not a single terror conviction, and the only weapon of mass destruction to be found in Iraq WAS USED AGAINST AMERICANS!

And still, the election predictions at this point are 50/50.
How extreme could he go and not lose support? How extreme can you imagine?
I'd like that vomit smiley, now.