Everyone, it's going to be OK: George Knows. - Page 6

'also' doesn't have an 'o' in the middle of it

Sorry, couldn't resist


seriously though, SDW is not foolish for standing up in what he believes in, he's also not foolish for trying to rationalize his beliefs in this situation. He has stated many times that if he feels that he is wrong, he will not vote for bush, but thus far, no one has presented him with anything that will change his mind.

is this a fault of his? maybe...a little, is it a fault on those that would see him change his mind? maybe...a little.

Once you've set yourself up in a position like SDW has, and like those who have been accosting him this whole thread, it's really less about facts or information at this point, just stubbornness and snide remarks.

1. Foolishness and standing up for your beliefs are not mutually exclusive. (If you believe that the President is infallible and if you believe the President has done no wrong despite mountains of evidence to the contrary- you're clearly a fool.)
2. "Everybody's wrong" is not a useful description of this thread. (Yes, of course they are, but that doesn't tell us anything about the subject at hand.)

By Naplesx,

-----------------------------------------------------------

" I also don't have a problem if you don't agree with Bush's policies, but like SDW, I think, I have a problem when you take it over the line without anything more than some partisan's editorial opinion, or in the case of Giant and Jimmac and others based on some self appointed superior intellect or understanding ".

-----------------------------------------------------------


OWWWW! My head hurts with all this self appointed superor intellect. God you make us sound like the martians in that H.G. Wells novel ( " cold and calculating " )!

The fact is you don't have to be a rocket scientist ( or martian ) to see giant sized holes in the logic Bush presented to country to justify this war.

All you have to do is be paying attention and not fall for the Bush ( Orwellian ) propaganda machine.

I'm going to take an extra stength excedrin as that really took a lot of mental effort!

I can just feel my brow bulging with self appointed superior intellect!

Where's my heat ray!

Owwwww!

For the record I was paying SDW back for a similar comment made by him earlier.

So you're saying we haven't presented any facts and are just accosting him? You haven't been reading!

Besides I like to mix a little humor with my facts. If you can't laugh at this rediculous world of ours you'll be in sorry shape.

I know, I'm not trying to knock you or anyone. I was just stating how this discussion really isn't getting anywhere, you have presented facts, so have many people, every time SDW turns a blind eye towards them, or discounts them as not from valid sources, or just doesn't believe them, there isn't really much you can do against stubbornness like that.

Even though you have presented him with facts, he is choosing not to believe them, so my comment about no one presenting anything that will make him change his mind is still valid, if he doesn't read your sources, or if he invalidates them based on the name of the URL, then what are you going to do?


oh, and for the record, I laugh at the ridiculous state of the world all the time ....then I cry myself to sleep

Yes, well one of the things I've found from this Bush related propaganda machine is that you have to keep repeating the facts or falsehoods tend to become facts.

What happens if you don't is falsehoods start to spread and eventually are accepted as facts among many ( "Saddam and Al Queda were the same thing " ).

No I believe in dragging this out into the light as much as possible.

I wish I could share your optimism, Personally, of all the political discussions I've ever seen online, nothing ever changes, people are always equally stubborn on both sides, and it just gets redundant and old real quick. So forgive me If I have a rather bleak view here, but I honestly don't think anything said here will change SDW's mind.

I have criticized Clinton, but I have not jumped from he may have done xyz to he definitively did xyz. You do see the difference, right?

No, you are right, you can call him what you will. But the venomous and total disrespect for this president is over the line IMO. I don't know about you, but I was brought up to show respect for those that are our elected leaders, regardless of personal opinions. I am hoping that you spew all the garbage that you do, because you can get away with it here, and that you would have some semblance of respect if you met Bush or any powerful person. But the fact that you do show such disrespect shows hatred, once again, IMO.

It is more human to show proper respect to a fellow human being that you have never met and more gentlemanly of you to argue your point with some hint of dignity and civility. Just because you can call someone an idiot, does it mean that you have to? Let me demonstrate:

You're an uber-idiot. Hey but it is just my opinion.

You see, it added nothing to this conversation and just caused a bigger rift.

Besides, I do not care if he is an idiot or not, nor do I intend to counter your goofy accusations that he is this or that. I think we all can make up our minds.

Here is a cut and paste of some stuff I posted before. Make up your own mind.

Where supporters and detractors of Bush stand percentage-wise.

\t\t\t\t\tPresident\tDetractors

Gay Marraige (Recent)\t\t51\t\t30
(CBS)
Avg. Iraq Approval since 2/03\t59\t\t35
(CBS)
Average Approval since 1/02\t59\t\t36
(AP)
Avg. Econemy Since 1/02\t\t54\t\t42
(AP)
Avg. Domestic Approval \t\t52\t\t44
since 1/02\t(AP)
Avg. Foreign Policy Approval\t67\t\t30
Since 1/02\t(AP)

Overall\t \t\t\t57\t\t36

Just some quick observations.

I used only liberal leaning sources lest my observations be called right leaning.

Criticizing policy is fine. Questioning the President's intellect is fine. What I (we?) am saying is that you and others here go WAY beyond criticism. You blame Bush for EVERYTHING, and give him credit for NOTHING. Anyone that thinks like this is truly polarized. Yet, what happens is you turn around and with the help of ten other super-liberal posters, call people like me blind zealots who can't think critically. And furthermore, you imply (and sometimes state literally) that anyone who thinks Bush is doing a good job, anyone that supports him is a common fool. That's just plainly delusional. I don't fault you for NOT supporting Bush. I don't even fault you for supporting Clinton. We just DISAGREE. I've said before that every one of my positions has it's reason and thought behind it. But that's not enough for some here, because once an opinion is stated on the board that runs counter to the Leftist mindset, the poster is told he is blind, stupid, fanatical et al. Some of you cannot even admit that AO is generally dominated by your OWN side. It's amazing.

As for polls, NaplesX has a point. No one wants to run as a true liberal....not even Kerry. The country is basically, generally conservative on the whole...or at least moderate. If you don't believe that, see how Kerry runs his campaign in the next few months. He'll spend have the time running away from his Leftist record.

say no more...I think this is the root of the friction here.\

He may have gone too far with that statement. Agreed.

The real irony is in your post above. Let me spell it out:

You called me a cheerleader. I then made an issue of the "context" of certain quotes in a "cheerleader-like" way. Perhaps that explains things for you. I'll be here as long as you need me.

You need to improve your english comprehension, sir or madam.

I did not call you anything or imply what you now are replying to.

My suggestion is hateful speech is just that, and the difference between the constant flow of hateful speech from the democratic party overall, is not far off from the hateful speech from many terrorist groups. I did not say they were equal. I was mere pointing out that if this hateful and personal attacks continue to ratchet up as they have you or they, if you like, will be in a dangerous place.

I guess your answer to my criticism of said speech is to beat someone up. Thank you you made my point quite nicely.

ziing! double-zing! reverse zing! zing again!

Wow. Facts? Really? Let me get this straight...YOU are talking about facts? When the source is invalid or partisan or just plainly not credible, you're damn right I'm going to dismiss it. For example, I'm not going to take the word of ONE MAN claiming that the current Admin. is a "bunch of crazies". A claim like that is fanatastic in the least, and insane at worst. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FACTS. YOU POST OPINIONS and PRESENT them as facts. That's why I dismiss your "sources".

There you go again. It's not enough to gloat that there are apparently no WMD in Iraq. You have to go one step further, and imply that any person who ever believed there were is an idiot. Explain to me how that's reasonable.

*I* didn't present any sources \

I do not believe Bush is infallible. I have not, at the same time, seen any real evidence whatsoever that he knowingly misled the nation. None. If you have some, then post it. Unaswered questions and the lack of current WMD finds don't do the trick.

Let's put forth a little scenario:

Let's just say, 10 years from now. We all realize that Bush and his "Ilk" were right after all. The middle east is moving to freedom and democracy. New fresh people are in power and we find out that this huge network of terrorists were intertwined in the many corrupt regimes in the ME. Iraq is found to have ties with Al-Qeada and many others. Syria is found to have harbored WMD for Iraq and others.

What of your current positions on wether the Iraq war was warranted or not? Will you accept then that Bush was right and will you credit him with a good decision?

I know that this is a lot of "ifs", but I personally believe this is what will happen.

I just don't see how you can make a judgement call on something you *believe* will happen ten years down the line. What is done is done, but what we choose to do from here on out can only depend on what we know is true now (not what we suspect will be true ten years from now). Policy bashing aside, that is just common sense.
I actually used my response to NaplesX and SDW2001 to prove a point, at no time have I actually in real life refered to the president as an idiot. I have actually corrected people who have, even though I think his policies are idiotic and very misdirected. It is not beneficial to suspect someone of being stupid or evil. Just like Hitler wasn't evil, GW isn't stupid. You learn a lot more about the way a person thinks when you assume little to begin with. I personally think Bush puts more faith into the people around him than himself. I think he is a bad president because of that, and those directions in which this weakness has taken this country. I am not saying the president isn't leading this country or doesn't make up his mind in the end, but he just isn't open to the possibility that those who disagree might have points every once in a while. He has effectively shived everyone in the administration who disagrees with him (or someone very close to him) and that is a mark of someone who prefers not to synthesize ideas.
I don't think the supporters of Bush are idiots. I think they feel like they are hearing what they want to hear from him. He is our most commercial president and that is unfortunate for this nation.
I would request an apology from NaplesX and SDW2001 for their broad generalizations of my person, but I don't expect one. I am a liberal, perhaps even a super liberal, but I have to agree that the meaning of that means that I must keep my mind open to all things. I think both sides of this argument are wrong-headed in their respective ways...

Apology? Let me know what specifically to apologize for and I will, if it is reasonable. I did not attack you in any way whatsoever, so let me know what I should apologize for.

Sorry, NaplesX, I re-read your post and besides the uber-idiot comment you really didn't insult me...
Sorry again...

So it appears that either you are unwilling to put your current opinion to the test of time or you are so biased that you do not want to give GWB any benefit of the doubt.

If you use that line of logic, we would all have to assume that you just went and married the first person you met and had feeling for, and totally ignored any hints to future problem. I hope not.

You logic is week, and defies common sense. Well, at least what I call common sense, anyway. I could be the exception to the rule, though.

I didn't say 'idiot' . . . . .

I am re-iterating the ISSUE . . . which is that we were told to believe something that was NOT true . . . and, had any leader worth credibility scrutinized the sources of that information rather than 'sexed-it-up-for-his-purposes' then we would not have been lead to believe that falsity to such an extent that we INVADED another country
invaded preemptively . . . 'pre-emptively*' meaning, prior to aggression or real cause on the invaded countries' part

*This is terminology that even the admin uses

I am pointing out that even you seem to indicate that your mistaken idea that we would find WMD is the result of information FED to us all: hence: ". . . is about me being wrong about Iraq [ . . ] Because I believed there were WMD? Well...gee...I wonder why I thought that"

Funny you should put it this way, since basically every one of your past opinions and beliefs have turned out so dead wrong.

The fact is that the BS was easy to see through and I have no pity for those who allowed themselves to be fooled and still haven't learned from the mistake. How many times do they have to run into a wall before they realize what the doorway is for?

Hey Giant,
I am not going to get into it with you again, as I am very busy and do not need to be called an idiot or uninformed zealot or whatever new catch-phrase is in these days in your circles.

But thanks for thinking of me. How are you doing. Good I hope.

See you did it without me even replying to your previous post.

What a gas.

Well, you're not one of the worst offenders. I respect what you're saying. though I do disagree with many things. I think the fact that Bush has surrounded himself with some experienced and brilliant people is a good thing. By contrast, Clinton and Gore were micromanagers (more so for the latter) who had more intelligence but a serious lack of judgement. As far as Bush supporters "hearing what they like", I still think you're dismissing the approx. 50 million supporters he has. They can't ALL be delusional, can they?

pfflam:

The information has turned out to be inaccurate. That simply doesn't mean we were lied to. There are just too many other possibilties. As an intelligent person (which I certainly think you are), you have to acknowledge them.

As for pre-emption, that's a policy dispute. I support that policy in the post 9/11 era. You apparently do not, and while I have my serious problems with your thinking, I can still respect your position, provided it's supportable and well thought out.

giant:



The more you post, the more you prove my point. The implication is that anyone who actually believed Saddam had WMD was complete. blind fool. I just don't see (ha) how that position is reasonable. John Kerry believed Saddam had WMD....so did Bill Clinton. Bush did, Blair did, Cheney did....even the CIA did, apparently. Either way, it appears they were wrong....but it certainly wasn't unreasonable to think they were right. If Bush lied, then so did every single Representative and Senator who voted for war. Do you believe that?

Well, this might be a valid conclusion if you were to assume that every single Member of Congress who voted for war, was doing so based on the exact same raw intelligence that was presented to Bush.

The point is, there is ample evidence suggesting that the Administration misled the nation and the world, by not presenting a complete and accurate representation of the available intelligence.

At best, they are guilty of cherry-picking the evidence presented to suit their pre-determined conclusions (something that I seem to see here quite often ), and at worst they are guilty of purposefully slanting or "sexing up" the information to deliberately deceive Congress, the UN, and the American voting public into supporting the unprecedented act of preemptive invasion.

I really don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt. Anyone. I like to think on my own.


Ah there is one little thing you tried to slip in there that isn't so obvious. Hints of future problems. That is the key. If there were hints, I would know them. There are no hints that Bush's experiment (mind you this is an experiment on real people) will actually produce the results you indicate in ten years. No hints at all...

No my logic is quite rigorously strong. Common sense isn't inherently logical. Some of it, like making judgements on what you know now and not what you suspect you will know in the future, is inherently logical. You probably are the exception...

I don't think the 50 million americans who wholeheartedly support Bush are delusional, I just think that what they want to hear and see done isn't particularly in line with what a responsible world power should do. I take an internationalist perspective on what should be done in the US. Think globally act locally, yadda yadda yadda.

No, no, no.

Anyone who uncritically ate up the propaganda was a fool, and those that haven't learned from it are complete blind fools.

But you almost had it right.

I think some lied, some were blind like you, some went along with the crowd and others were duped by bad info:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121803A.shtml

Here's what you wrote:

"The personal attacks and hatred on/for this president are so far beyond the pale, that I wonder if those making such statements are even Americans. This discourse could easily be found being spewed by Al-Qeada or Taliban or Hamas members on any given day."

Take a good, hard look at what you've just said there before you go accusing me of misreading you.

Let's not get this thread closed too, eh? Just drop the personal remarks and patronizing tone with one another, and we can get back on topic (whatever it is).

.

I'm a terrorist, your a terrorist...

wouldn't you like to be a terrorist too?

Be a terrorist, Drink Dr. Bushie.


We're used to this sorta BS. If you have lost any respect for Bush that you may have had at one time and think he needs to go... and that he couldn't do the right thing if it was staring him in the face...
You're a terrorist.

Joining the NEA, ACLU, Moveon.org, the whole democratic party, Kerry, Max Cleland...

Keep in mind NaplesX less that 50% of the country think bush is doing a good job... are they all terrorists too?

We don't criticize Bush for attacking the terrorists... we criticize him for NOT going after the terrorosts.

Well....the point is that Congress apparently saw enough to vote for force (or those who voted "yes" anyway). Now, if you're suggesting the intelligence was falsified, that's different. Do you think that?

billy:


"Hearing what they want" can be called delusional. Now we're playing semantics games. You're basically saying that anyone who supports Bush is naive and incapable of critical analysis.

As for what a world power should do, I'm curious to hear about that. What are your thoughts? This may be, simply, a disagreement. I believe we should act in our interests as nation. We should consult other powers (which we did with Iraq), but when it's American blood and dollars on the line as it always seems to be, we shouldn't be limited by third rate world powers either. What is it that we shouldn't be or should be doing?

Give it a rest. He didn't actually call anyone a terrorist. Relax.

What is your last statement about? What's your solution?